The rest of the world doesn't care what your Emperor Trump feels like declaring. We're getting rid of coal because we see an obvious benefit to do so. You don't even need to believe in global warming to see why this is a good thing. So go ahead and mine all the coal you want, but don't be surprised when there's no export market for any of it.
I think it was who said that one failed terrorist attack and we all have to take our shoes off before boarding a plane but 31 shootings later still no new gun laws. This country has it's priorities completely backwards:(...
Your comment offends me. Tell me you real name and where you work so I can start a campaign to get you fired.
Honestly, I would never do that to anyone, but you don't seem to have that problem. If what he said had been a direct quote taken in proper context, he should have been reprimanded at worst, and that should have been the end of it. Unfortunately, there are apparently a lot of people out there like you with an axe to grind. You said it yourself. This was someone associated with a group who made decisions with an outcome you disagreed with, and this is an opportunity for you to attack that group by attacking one of its members. Your motives are not suspect; they are provably corrupt.
We used to have this concept of "innocent until proven guilty". I still think most western legal systems try to recognize this concept, but people like you seem to have found a way to circumvent that legal system entirely. This thing, whatever you call it, is definitely not justice. It's mob mentality. If you want to learn the difference, tell us what your real name is and where you work.
And it's NOT Sci-fi. It's set in a sci-fi environment yes, but the show itself is not sci-fi themed. (ie, there's no alien-of-the-week-kinda-crap going on..)
WASH: Psychic, though? That sounds like
something out of science fiction!
Consider this: Every time the Boston Red Sox win the World Series in a presidential election year, Woodrow Wilson gets elected president. You can look it up: 1912 and 1916. Now the Sox have done it again. What's it mean? You read it here first: Woodrow Wilson in a landslide!
You do know that you your constitution prohibits him from running for a third complete term, right? In any case, the rather nasty speech impediment he's developed since he died might work against him. I think he might still be able to vote, tho.
He also thinks that with disk space becoming cheaper and cheaper, we'll be tempted to archive everything about ourselves, including pictures and videos.
Yeah, but how do you back yourself up? Tho, this might make a good argument for the "what if you get hit by a truck" thing. But backup mediums are falling so far behind in speed and volume, they're becoming only marginally useful.
Now digital me has to worry about stupid questions like "what if you get hit by a magnet".
Code is not an invention. http was an invention, but Apache was not. Industrial designs, IC topographies, etc, are partially covered under copyright law. What you design is irrelevant to copyright law. What is relevant, is *how* (not the process, but the product). Words and ideas are not copyrightable, but the arrangement of these things most definitely are. If you invented the lawnmower, and didn't patent it, I could make a lawnmower that does exactly the same thing, but I couldn't make a lawnmower that *looks* exactly the same.
Why not? He's already running your country, right? You silly americans should probably just overthrow your government, and be done with it. I'm kidding, of course. At the current rate of decay of your rights, you still have more than ten good years of "freedom".
Honestly, it scares me to know that if US citizens can't protect their rights now, then the civilized world doesn't stand a chance when our turn comes. US laws have a rather insidious way of becoming global. Can you spell embargo?
FWIW, IMO, copyright is a good thing. There are only two really major problems I see:
20 years *total* is more than enough. None of this lifetime+time until december 31+320 years+6 full moons crap. 20 years. If you haven't made your money by then, I don't think another century is going to help.
Copyright is not a right that should be given to a non-person. Sure, corporations should be able to negotiate the right to use copyrighted material, but not to own it. Just how does that lifetime part work anyways with an owner that doesn't technically die?
Heh. Well, *technically* it's legal to download and burn music here in Canada, so I'm going to go enjoy my rights while I still live in a free country.
How secure is this, really? I mean, is the gene sequence of pidgeons freely available for download? If I find a design flaw in the pidgeon, who do I submit patches to?
The whole idea of free software is just that -- that it's free and is being made to produce good software and not because someone is pursuing a cash prize. A certain project being developed with the Software Carpentry Project competition in mind might be rushed through development just so it can meet the contest deadline. End result: A buggier product with fewer features.
What does money have to do with free software? I doubt very much if any of the top contestants would have bothered with the contest if they didn't enjoy the project itself. Money is just an added incentive. Besides.. A coder's gotta pay for his caffeine and cigarettes somehow, right?
If they don't take pride in their work, and produce crappy code, then they don't deserve to win anyways.
This is a model where the artists really *could* get payed. If every band set up a site, and said "pay us $5 for every album's worth of music that you download", and everyone who would have bought the disc downloads it and pays for it, the musicians would make more money per CD than they would through the record companies.
This is so brilliant, I bet you wished you'd thought of it. Anyone ever hear of a game called DooM? Not in stores anywhere ever, and yet the quality of the Shareware version told me I NEEDED that game. ID gave me something fully functional to demo, and I knew from this demo that I had to have the rest of the game. It worked for them, so why can't it work for the music industry? Give out free samples, skip the middleman, and if honest people want it, they'll buy it. If dishonest people want it, they'll just steal it anyways. It doesn't matter if it's an mp3 or a CD-R, or a cassette recording from AM radio.
protection of copyrighted software has always been bad for people who use software.
Huh? Name ONE operating system that is not copyrighted. Linux? Wrong. The GPL IS a copyright, and it SHOULD be protected. Metallica's music is copyrighted, and IT should be protected. Metallica may be suing the wrong people, but by no means does that strip them of their right to protect their intellectual property.
Seems to me that Metallica is acting out one of their own songs (tired, can't think which one) about an old man who feels victimized and angry, and is lashing out at the first available target without considering whether or not they're even responsible.
You may believe that the statement of suing Napster users is ridiculous. IMHO they are the only ones who have really violated the copyright of the artists. The reason that Napster is the target, is because it is perceived as a control point. Take it out and you have the ability to affect the highest number of users. The music industry is fighting this out as a war, and really doesn't care about anything more then buisness.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Don't get me wrong, though. I think Metallica is doing the right thing (protecting their legally recognized copyright), but they're doing it the wrong way. I suppose they'll try to sue altavista and yahoo next. A quick search on either will get you their mp3's at least as reliably as Napster would. If that doesn't work, maybe they can lobby to have ftp banned. Or maybe they can sue Netscape for making a web browser that lets you do the same thing. Or NullSoft, for making software that lets you play these 'pirated' mp3's. The effect is the same either way. If they were to win a law suit against napster, then they'd be setting a major precedence which would limit the freedom of the net for years to come.
Napster is no more responsible for the theft of their music than any retail outlet is responsible for some shoplifter stealing it. Of course, in the case of the retailer, Metallica makes their money anyways, and the store takes the loss, so that's ok for Metallica. Hell. Napster doesn't even host the mp3's.
Did Lars Ulrich or anyone else even bother to fill out the form Napster has for complaints of copyright infringement they have on their site?
Slashdot Mirror
The rest of the world doesn't care what your Emperor Trump feels like declaring. We're getting rid of coal because we see an obvious benefit to do so. You don't even need to believe in global warming to see why this is a good thing. So go ahead and mine all the coal you want, but don't be surprised when there's no export market for any of it.
I think it was who said that one failed terrorist attack and we all have to take our shoes off before boarding a plane but 31 shootings later still no new gun laws. This country has it's priorities completely backwards :(...
Except John Oliver never said that! https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... If you're too impatient, skip to 2:45.
Your comment offends me. Tell me you real name and where you work so I can start a campaign to get you fired.
Honestly, I would never do that to anyone, but you don't seem to have that problem. If what he said had been a direct quote taken in proper context, he should have been reprimanded at worst, and that should have been the end of it. Unfortunately, there are apparently a lot of people out there like you with an axe to grind. You said it yourself. This was someone associated with a group who made decisions with an outcome you disagreed with, and this is an opportunity for you to attack that group by attacking one of its members. Your motives are not suspect; they are provably corrupt.
We used to have this concept of "innocent until proven guilty". I still think most western legal systems try to recognize this concept, but people like you seem to have found a way to circumvent that legal system entirely. This thing, whatever you call it, is definitely not justice. It's mob mentality. If you want to learn the difference, tell us what your real name is and where you work.
WASH: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction!
ZOE: You live in a spaceship, dear.
WASH: So?
Consider this: Every time the Boston Red Sox win the World Series in a presidential election year, Woodrow Wilson gets elected president. You can look it up: 1912 and 1916. Now the Sox have done it again. What's it mean? You read it here first: Woodrow Wilson in a landslide!
You do know that you your constitution prohibits him from running for a third complete term, right? In any case, the rather nasty speech impediment he's developed since he died might work against him. I think he might still be able to vote, tho.
He also thinks that with disk space becoming cheaper and cheaper, we'll be tempted to archive everything about ourselves, including pictures and videos.
Yeah, but how do you back yourself up? Tho, this might make a good argument for the "what if you get hit by a truck" thing. But backup mediums are falling so far behind in speed and volume, they're becoming only marginally useful.
Now digital me has to worry about stupid questions like "what if you get hit by a magnet".
Code is not an invention. http was an invention, but Apache was not. Industrial designs, IC topographies, etc, are partially covered under copyright law. What you design is irrelevant to copyright law. What is relevant, is *how* (not the process, but the product). Words and ideas are not copyrightable, but the arrangement of these things most definitely are. If you invented the lawnmower, and didn't patent it, I could make a lawnmower that does exactly the same thing, but I couldn't make a lawnmower that *looks* exactly the same.
I may be wrong, but that's how I read it.
Why not? He's already running your country, right? You silly americans should probably just overthrow your government, and be done with it. I'm kidding, of course. At the current rate of decay of your rights, you still have more than ten good years of "freedom".
Honestly, it scares me to know that if US citizens can't protect their rights now, then the civilized world doesn't stand a chance when our turn comes. US laws have a rather insidious way of becoming global. Can you spell embargo?
FWIW, IMO, copyright is a good thing. There are only two really major problems I see:
- 20 years *total* is more than enough. None of this lifetime+time until december 31+320 years+6 full moons crap. 20 years. If you haven't made your money by then, I don't think another century is going to help.
- Copyright is not a right that should be given to a non-person. Sure, corporations should be able to negotiate the right to use copyrighted material, but not to own it. Just how does that lifetime part work anyways with an owner that doesn't technically die?
Heh. Well, *technically* it's legal to download and burn music here in Canada, so I'm going to go enjoy my rights while I still live in a free country.It's the packet loss, I'm most worried about.
How secure is this, really? I mean, is the gene sequence of pidgeons freely available for download? If I find a design flaw in the pidgeon, who do I submit patches to?
Heh.. umm.. am i the only one that notice this patent was issued over 2 years ago? how does this rate as being 'current' news?
The whole idea of free software is just that -- that it's free and is being made to produce good software and not because someone is pursuing a cash prize. A certain project being developed with the Software Carpentry Project competition in mind might be rushed through development just so it can meet the contest deadline. End result: A buggier product with fewer features.
What does money have to do with free software? I doubt very much if any of the top contestants would have bothered with the contest if they didn't enjoy the project itself. Money is just an added incentive. Besides.. A coder's gotta pay for his caffeine and cigarettes somehow, right?
If they don't take pride in their work, and produce crappy code, then they don't deserve to win anyways.
This is a model where the artists really *could* get payed. If every band set up a site, and said "pay us $5 for every album's worth of music that you download", and everyone who would have bought the disc downloads it and pays for it, the musicians would make more money per CD than they would through the record companies.
This is so brilliant, I bet you wished you'd thought of it. Anyone ever hear of a game called DooM? Not in stores anywhere ever, and yet the quality of the Shareware version told me I NEEDED that game. ID gave me something fully functional to demo, and I knew from this demo that I had to have the rest of the game. It worked for them, so why can't it work for the music industry? Give out free samples, skip the middleman, and if honest people want it, they'll buy it. If dishonest people want it, they'll just steal it anyways. It doesn't matter if it's an mp3 or a CD-R, or a cassette recording from AM radio.
Get a bunch of Playstations, overclock them to 1 Ghz, port Linux to them, and then make a gigantic Beowulf cluster.
Have Linux and gcc been ported to Playstation yet?
protection of copyrighted software has always been bad for people who use software.
Huh? Name ONE operating system that is not copyrighted. Linux? Wrong. The GPL IS a copyright, and it SHOULD be protected. Metallica's music is copyrighted, and IT should be protected. Metallica may be suing the wrong people, but by no means does that strip them of their right to protect their intellectual property.
Seems to me that Metallica is acting out one of their own songs (tired, can't think which one) about an old man who feels victimized and angry, and is lashing out at the first available target without considering whether or not they're even responsible.
You may believe that the statement of suing Napster users is ridiculous. IMHO they are the only ones who have really violated the copyright of the artists. The reason that Napster is the target, is because it is perceived as a control point. Take it out and you have the ability to affect the highest number of users. The music industry is fighting this out as a war, and really doesn't care about anything more then buisness.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Don't get me wrong, though. I think Metallica is doing the right thing (protecting their legally recognized copyright), but they're doing it the wrong way. I suppose they'll try to sue altavista and yahoo next. A quick search on either will get you their mp3's at least as reliably as Napster would. If that doesn't work, maybe they can lobby to have ftp banned. Or maybe they can sue Netscape for making a web browser that lets you do the same thing. Or NullSoft, for making software that lets you play these 'pirated' mp3's. The effect is the same either way. If they were to win a law suit against napster, then they'd be setting a major precedence which would limit the freedom of the net for years to come.
Napster is no more responsible for the theft of their music than any retail outlet is responsible for some shoplifter stealing it. Of course, in the case of the retailer, Metallica makes their money anyways, and the store takes the loss, so that's ok for Metallica. Hell. Napster doesn't even host the mp3's.
Did Lars Ulrich or anyone else even bother to fill out the form Napster has for complaints of copyright infringement they have on their site?
BTW, searching yahoo brought up this.