Another thing people seem to forget is that when Microsoft first announced this functionality, the op-eds were full of warnings that email viruses were just around the corner. Microsoft's position at the time was that the benefits would outweigh any theorhetical risk.
Anyone thought that the voice over sounds alot like the Oricle.
The voice you're hearing is that of actress Mary Alice. Gloria Foster (who played The Oracle in the first two films) died on 2001-09-29. Ms. Alice takes over the role of The Oracle in Revolutions, as well as in the Enter the Matrix video game. Obviously, fanboys aren't interested in things like an actor's death, so an ad hoc explanation was devised to explain why The Oracle looks different now. (Personally, I don't understand the problem. Most people accept the various incarnations of James Bond without batting an eye, but change the actor playing Darrin Stephens and the nation is plunged into chaos.)
I wonder what the possibility the little speach she is giving is to Agent Smith.
The same idea occurred to me. The first film's message could potentially be summed up as, "Things are not what they seem." That (and Hollywood's tendency to create downright deceptive trailers) leads me wonder Who is she talking to and and who is she talking about? Is it who most assume it would be? The film would be much more interesting if it's not.
Added to that, I'd like to toss in an observation about the trailer at the end of Enter the Matrix. A bit from the trailer shows Niobe saying, "Neo...", followed by some random action, then Morpheus saying, "He fights for us." The message you're supposed to receive is that these two bits are connected, but I don't think so. To me, Morpheus looks confused when he says that line, as if he can't quite accept what he's saying. Also, he says it barely above a whisper, indicating he might be talking to himself.
I don't know; I guess it'll be public knowledge soon enough.
What will be challenging is how they will maintain the long-term interest of achiever players, since once you reach master and run out of skill points, it becomes quite painful to give up the skills you worked so hard for just to advance in a new profession to keep experiencing new content.
One of my buddies has hypothesized that this is how one unlocks the force-sensitive slot: master every profession at some point with the same character. I realize it's pure conjecture, but as such things go, I've heard worse.
You're right: I failed to specify that I was referring to the US. The Supreme Court recently decided Eldred v. Ashcroft (PDF), in which it said that if Congress was increasing the term for new copyrights, it could extend the term of existing copyrights to match it. I consider that to be "a clever trick", but of course Congress would disagree.
When someone you know is murdered, you may see things differently than you do now.
For all you know, someone rEWDBOi knows was murdered and s/he still feels this way. Some people have these things called "principles" which they stand by, even when it becomes inconvenient to do so.
Oh, and appeals to emotion are considered bad form in arguments. That's why "Won't somebody think of the children?!" is a recurring joke on The Simpsons.
I don't buy it. When Monty Hall opens the door, he changes the problem. A simple brute-force technique will show you that your odds of winning are 50-50:
P = Prize behind this door; N = No prize behind this door; Bold = The door you initially picked; Italics = The door Monty Hall reveals; K = Keep your original door; S = Switch doors; W = You win with this strategy; L = You lose with this strategy.
1 2 3 K S PN N W L P N N W L P NN L W P NN L W N P N L W NP N W L N PN W L N P N L W NN P L W NN P L W N N P W L N NP W L
If that was a sound and workable business plan, why aren't they already doing it? In current American society, AT&T can buy tanks, and 911 still wouldn't accomplish much in the above scenario.
Okay, you've got me there. I still contend, though, that the difference between a tank and "slamming" is a question of degree. Corporations break the law all the time, and usually have no qualms about doing so because even as interventionist as our government is today, it still doesn't bother to punish corps. who do wrong.
Finally, how much "interpretation" can one make of the Second Amendment? "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's hard to imagine how the Framers could have made their intention any clearer.
You know, I have to admit that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has only one interpretation that I can think of, but then again, you've omitted half the text:
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's the "well-regulated militia" part that gives rise to most differences of opinion. You've already established that "to regulate" is "to set laws controlling how something is done." It is not, therefore, unreasonable for someone to conclude that the second amendment only applies to entities like the National Guard.
Before you rebut, though, I should point out that I happen to lean toward your interpretation of things. I just understand that reasonable men may differ.
Government can force you to do things in a certain way, and if you refuse to do them that way, they can send men with guns to your house and take you away to jail. That's force. That's government.
Given the libertarian interpretation of the second amendment, why exactly can't corporations do the same thing? AT&T can show up at your front door in a tank promoting their new "Fifty Cents a Minute or Else" long distance plan. I don't think calling 911 will accomplish much.
Most people should know the importance of basic car maintenence: checking oil, tire pressure, anti-freeze, etc. Many, many people don't bother to do so. When they have problems, is it Ford's fault?
Your analogy is flawed. The product was defective when it left the manufacturer. The automotive analogy to a patch is a recall. The general public views recalls as an indication that Ford (or whoever) is at fault.
(remember we're in the make-believe ideal-land for now)
In that case, we're in complete agreement. Common sense says there ought to be a way to throw a work into the public domain, unless someone wants to liken it to littering.:-)
It occurs to me that the auto-copyright sceme that we currently have might actually make it harder to implement a voluntary donation to the public domain. Currently, the default state is that a work is copyrighted, even if the government has no idea that it exists. That means it might be necessary to "register" gifts to the public, which means even more work for the USPTO. At a minimum, you'd have to register the copyright first, so as to create a way of verifying you aren't trying to give away someone else's work.
*sigh* I think it's time to write my Congress-critter again.
My only consideration there is that people tend to be fickle, and if you were to suddenly have a change of heart and say, "You know what? I was crazy to let you people copy my stuff willy-nilly. Please stop doing it," there isn't a whole lot I can do about it. Admittedly, one might be able to argue that your previous statement is a "contract" of sorts, and a court might force you to abide by it, but (A) I don't think it would, and (B) the very idea that we'd need a court to sort everything out would likely keep me from pressing the matter. That waiting for the other shoe to drop is what makes the biggest difference, because then people are less likely to do the other fun stuff with your work, like incorporate it into new works.
But then again, perhaps you're the altrusitic sort who'd never do anything like that. But what of your heirs? Since copyright survives the grave by seventy years, your kids or even your grandkids might decide you were a crazy hippie, and try and start laying the smackdown.
Personally, I'd like to believe that you can really put something into the public domain, and logic suggests that you could, but Congress likes to do really strange things with copyright law, so I don't trust logic here.
[O]nce owning copyright, the author can always offer "unlimited reproduction rights for $0" and make it effectively PD again.
Emphasis added.
First, saying something is "effectively" public domain doesn't mean that it is, in fact, public domain. Second, just because I decide to offer an "all you can copy for $0" deal this year, doesn't mean I can't turn around and start charging for copies next year, or demanding royalties from downstream copiers. Finally, after I'm dead, my creations continue to retain their copyright for another seventy years. Even if I opted never to demand a single royalty, my heirs are entitled to demand royalties from all copiers.
(Disclaimer - IANAL, I'm also Canadian) According to US law, there's 2 ways to release your work - with or without copyright.
IANAL either, but I can tell you that you are in error. According to U.S. law, all works are copyrighted at the moment of creation. The notion that you can choose to put something into the public domain has no force of law behind it.
Okay. I understand all that. Once I finally "got" it, I decided this was the last finance program I'd ever use. But the equations don't always balance.
I buy 100 shares of FOO at $1. My assets in my brokerage account increase by $100. At the same time, my checking account (also an asset) drops by $100. Net change = 0.
FOO doubles in value. My net assets is suddenly up by $100, and there is no corresponding decrease anywhere else. What is the correct method of handling this? Something is wrong here, because in GnuCash, it causes the sums of all balances to become non-zero.
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing people seem to forget is that when Microsoft first announced this functionality, the op-eds were full of warnings that email viruses were just around the corner. Microsoft's position at the time was that the benefits would outweigh any theorhetical risk.
IIRC, pivot tables are "functionality", not a "function". Functions are those things that look like: =foo(a,b,c)
The voice you're hearing is that of actress Mary Alice. Gloria Foster (who played The Oracle in the first two films) died on 2001-09-29. Ms. Alice takes over the role of The Oracle in Revolutions, as well as in the Enter the Matrix video game. Obviously, fanboys aren't interested in things like an actor's death, so an ad hoc explanation was devised to explain why The Oracle looks different now. (Personally, I don't understand the problem. Most people accept the various incarnations of James Bond without batting an eye, but change the actor playing Darrin Stephens and the nation is plunged into chaos.)
The same idea occurred to me. The first film's message could potentially be summed up as, "Things are not what they seem." That (and Hollywood's tendency to create downright deceptive trailers) leads me wonder Who is she talking to and and who is she talking about? Is it who most assume it would be? The film would be much more interesting if it's not.
Added to that, I'd like to toss in an observation about the trailer at the end of Enter the Matrix. A bit from the trailer shows Niobe saying, "Neo...", followed by some random action, then Morpheus saying, "He fights for us." The message you're supposed to receive is that these two bits are connected, but I don't think so. To me, Morpheus looks confused when he says that line, as if he can't quite accept what he's saying. Also, he says it barely above a whisper, indicating he might be talking to himself.
I don't know; I guess it'll be public knowledge soon enough.
One of my buddies has hypothesized that this is how one unlocks the force-sensitive slot: master every profession at some point with the same character. I realize it's pure conjecture, but as such things go, I've heard worse.
You're right: I failed to specify that I was referring to the US. The Supreme Court recently decided Eldred v. Ashcroft (PDF), in which it said that if Congress was increasing the term for new copyrights, it could extend the term of existing copyrights to match it. I consider that to be "a clever trick", but of course Congress would disagree.
I forgot to add: I like the way you worded the statement in such a way that the murder of someone rEWDBOi knows is inevitable ("When" not "If").
For all you know, someone rEWDBOi knows was murdered and s/he still feels this way. Some people have these things called "principles" which they stand by, even when it becomes inconvenient to do so.
Oh, and appeals to emotion are considered bad form in arguments. That's why "Won't somebody think of the children?!" is a recurring joke on The Simpsons.
Copyright extensions are generally retroactive. As it stands, copyrighted works created in 1923 are still under copyright.
So, does that mean that we can still dork around about 4k + 2 sized boards?
Oh, bother. I'm an idiot.
Yep, it seems so obvious now. I'll just sit in the back here and let the grownups do all the talking.
I don't buy it. When Monty Hall opens the door, he changes the problem. A simple brute-force technique will show you that your odds of winning are 50-50:
P = Prize behind this door; N = No prize behind this door; Bold = The door you initially picked; Italics = The door Monty Hall reveals; K = Keep your original door; S = Switch doors; W = You win with this strategy; L = You lose with this strategy.
1 2 3 K S
P N N W L
P N N W L
P N N L W
P N N L W
N P N L W
N P N W L
N P N W L
N P N L W
N N P L W
N N P L W
N N P W L
N N P W L
6 wins, 6 losses no matter what your strategy.
Okay, you've got me there. I still contend, though, that the difference between a tank and "slamming" is a question of degree. Corporations break the law all the time, and usually have no qualms about doing so because even as interventionist as our government is today, it still doesn't bother to punish corps. who do wrong.
You know, I have to admit that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has only one interpretation that I can think of, but then again, you've omitted half the text:
It's the "well-regulated militia" part that gives rise to most differences of opinion. You've already established that "to regulate" is "to set laws controlling how something is done." It is not, therefore, unreasonable for someone to conclude that the second amendment only applies to entities like the National Guard.
Before you rebut, though, I should point out that I happen to lean toward your interpretation of things. I just understand that reasonable men may differ.
Damn! I totally forgot about The Great Space Coaster. Okay, I withdraw my parent post.
I know you're just being funny, but I've never met anyone who pronounces the G in GNU.
Given the libertarian interpretation of the second amendment, why exactly can't corporations do the same thing? AT&T can show up at your front door in a tank promoting their new "Fifty Cents a Minute or Else" long distance plan. I don't think calling 911 will accomplish much.
Your analogy is flawed. The product was defective when it left the manufacturer. The automotive analogy to a patch is a recall. The general public views recalls as an indication that Ford (or whoever) is at fault.
Therefore, Microsoft is to blame.
In that case, we're in complete agreement. Common sense says there ought to be a way to throw a work into the public domain, unless someone wants to liken it to littering. :-)
It occurs to me that the auto-copyright sceme that we currently have might actually make it harder to implement a voluntary donation to the public domain. Currently, the default state is that a work is copyrighted, even if the government has no idea that it exists. That means it might be necessary to "register" gifts to the public, which means even more work for the USPTO. At a minimum, you'd have to register the copyright first, so as to create a way of verifying you aren't trying to give away someone else's work.
*sigh* I think it's time to write my Congress-critter again.
My only consideration there is that people tend to be fickle, and if you were to suddenly have a change of heart and say, "You know what? I was crazy to let you people copy my stuff willy-nilly. Please stop doing it," there isn't a whole lot I can do about it. Admittedly, one might be able to argue that your previous statement is a "contract" of sorts, and a court might force you to abide by it, but (A) I don't think it would, and (B) the very idea that we'd need a court to sort everything out would likely keep me from pressing the matter. That waiting for the other shoe to drop is what makes the biggest difference, because then people are less likely to do the other fun stuff with your work, like incorporate it into new works.
But then again, perhaps you're the altrusitic sort who'd never do anything like that. But what of your heirs? Since copyright survives the grave by seventy years, your kids or even your grandkids might decide you were a crazy hippie, and try and start laying the smackdown.
Personally, I'd like to believe that you can really put something into the public domain, and logic suggests that you could, but Congress likes to do really strange things with copyright law, so I don't trust logic here.
Emphasis added.
First, saying something is "effectively" public domain doesn't mean that it is, in fact, public domain. Second, just because I decide to offer an "all you can copy for $0" deal this year, doesn't mean I can't turn around and start charging for copies next year, or demanding royalties from downstream copiers. Finally, after I'm dead, my creations continue to retain their copyright for another seventy years. Even if I opted never to demand a single royalty, my heirs are entitled to demand royalties from all copiers.
Only if someone has the time, money, and will to go after them.
I've never heard of such a thing. Could you point me to some case law or something that substantiates this?
Emphasis modified.
If SCO didn't register their copyrighted code (which is likely, or else we could just ask the USPTO for the offending code), then this doesn't apply.
IANAL either, but I can tell you that you are in error. According to U.S. law, all works are copyrighted at the moment of creation. The notion that you can choose to put something into the public domain has no force of law behind it.
Okay. I understand all that. Once I finally "got" it, I decided this was the last finance program I'd ever use. But the equations don't always balance.
I buy 100 shares of FOO at $1. My assets in my brokerage account increase by $100. At the same time, my checking account (also an asset) drops by $100. Net change = 0.
FOO doubles in value. My net assets is suddenly up by $100, and there is no corresponding decrease anywhere else. What is the correct method of handling this? Something is wrong here, because in GnuCash, it causes the sums of all balances to become non-zero.
Scheme isn't exactly my forte, but I'll look into it. Thanks for patiently answering my questions.