You can sometimes crop a cast-iron-copyrighted photo just with your Fair Use rights.
If you take the intersection of the anti-NC and anti-ND arguments, you end up with a basis so broad it could be turned into an anti-BY argument and an anti-SA argument too. Can you not see that BY maintains some elements of proprietoriness?
I think the ultimate freedom is "let the creators decide what they want to let others do with their work", and for that you need the full gamut of licences.
I've noticed that the paper's author works for Duke University's "Think of the chiiiiiildren" department.
You don't think she might not be neutral on this matter, do you?
The NS write-up made no mention of how she isolated the physiological aspects with the sociological aspects. What about drug users who didn't fall in with the "wrong crowd", and what about non-drug users who did fall in with the "wrong crowd" - how do they compare? I reckon all she's measured is the effect of the sociological group you grow up around, not the actual chemicals you put in your bloodstream. If you're doing dope 4 times a week, you're probably not in a particularly cosseting family environment, for example.
Oh for pity's sake - there is *MORE THAN ONE* CC license. Yes, I am shouting - you are being thick. Your entire argument seems to be based on total misapprehensions.
> I'm a software developer and any ND or NC license is useless for me.... > What is commercial? I develop a free open source tool and release it on my site, but the site have ads from Google, or it have other commercial applications there, too. Can't do that with a NC license.
You completely misunderstand CC-NC. You are the copyright owner, you can do what the hell you like with your own software, the NC clause doesn't limit you, only others. However, it's probably best that your software isn't released, if you're too stupid to understand the NC clause, then I don't trust you to be able to write competent software.
> Why to share your work in the first place?
What a mind-bogglingly stupid question. You do it so that others can enjoy your work, or make use of your work, and possibly pass it on to others who will do the same. Or maybe even just to garnour cheap publicity for yourself, such that those who hear of you may approach you for your skills in a commercial context.
Why do you have such a blinkered black-and-white all-or-nothing mind? A girl who's happy to chat you you in the pub shouldn't be obligated to let you have sex with her - just because you can enjoy the pleasure of her company briefly doesn't mean that you should be able to do whatever you like with her.
> So, if dropping NC and ND results in a single work being relicensed under a free license, this would be a benefit.
Even if thousands of equally skillfully crafted works were no longer released under any CC license and kept proprietory because the NC or ND clause was deemed too important?
> NC and ND basically say: That work is free but only if you are not using it for Xxxx and Zzzz. Which means it is not free at all.
No, it means that it is not entirely free. Being "not free at all" would mean there are no freedoms; but there are some freedoms, so your terminology is little more than an emotively charged gross exageration.
What if I take some CC-SA poem and put it to a tune of my own penning, and commercially publish that song (either as sheet music, or recorded)? Is it just the lyrics I have to share-alike, or the whole song?
And if I mix some CC-SA samples into a track that I sell commercially? Is it just those samples I have to share alike, or my whole song?
1/(.189Hz) is 5.3s Doesn't the sampling theorem mean you need at least 10.6s of sample to reconstruct suhch a frequency? That makes me think you'd need that length of sample to measure such a frequency too. (Dunno, I lost all my DSP smarts many years back.)
Moreover, having a component at a particular frequency doesn't make it a note at a particular frequency. Modulate a 5s 'wah-wah-wah' with your mouth over a normal tone, and you'll measure a 0.2Hz component using FFT analysis. (Which is why single-bit very-high-frequency PWM works for transmitting normal-frequency audio - simply damp to reconstruct.)
You're mostly right. In your lowest frequencies, it's not your vocal cords that are clicking, it's another set of membranes right next to the vocal cords. Those clicks are obviously harsher and full of harmonics, as they're generating square waves. (This gives Metallica vocals their distinctive sound, for example.)
If you don't go quite as low, and try to keep your voice as pure as possible, and then *at the same frequency* go all Hetfield-like and back to pure again you'll hear, and feel, the difference. With a bit of practice you'll be able to precisely pick the balance between the use of two membranes at will.
With infinitely more practice, you'll be able to get those other membranes vibrating at half the frequency of your vocal chords, at which point you'll be well on the way to mastering one of the Tuvan harmonic singing techniques.
It's clear from some of the youtube links that have been posted that this guy is effectively just using the same kind of technique, and whilst it's very impressive for what it is, his parps are way less musical than say Paul Pena's harmonic singing, which was reaching an octive below normal ranges. (And which caused the Tuvans to nickname him "Earthquake".) If you've not seen the film/Ghengis Blues/, and anything I've mentioned sounds interesting, I highly recommend watching it. It's a very touching movie as well as a very interesting one.
As for the "infrasonic" claims in TFA, they're mostly bullcrap. He may be able to modulate sound pressure waves at those frequencies, but so can I - by breathing normally.
Not just one fewer potential sale - maybe hundreds, or millions, depending on who that reviewer is.
Hmmm, the most influential reviewers tend to get freebies rather than having to pay money for things - which of course makes their review even less objective, and less reliable as a reviewer.
Fair Use covers a lot more than just making backups. It permits you to even broadcast, i.e. indiscriminate dissemination to the masses, not just a single transfter to a known individual, parts of copyrighted material.
Nope, because to appropriate is to take for oneself, and thus to deny the original owner such access. (And to take something means you don't leave it, similarly.)
How did the UK go from the 1900s smogs to the cleaner breathable air it has today? Thanks to government intervention and legislation. How did the government finance what it did? Through taxes.
So yes, if you're in a built up area, you do pay taxes for your air.
""" For meteor showers the statement "before dawn" is correct for virtually everyone, anywhere. The reason is simple: the Earth is rotating towards the forward motion of our orbital path and we tend to run into the most particles (meteors) at that time. Bugs on a windshield. """
The earth's rotation on its axis being the important thing makes no geometric sense. The forward motion will be minimal for those at midday, nearest the sun, and effectively spinning in the opposite direction of the earth's orbit. The forward motion will maximal for those at midnight, with the earth's spin adding to the earth's velocity. Half way between the two for those at dawn.
The only reason that seems to make geometric sense is that the angle of incidence will be shallower for those at midnight than for those at dawn, and therefore a smaller slice of the meteor shower is intersected by the field of vision. Face on (at dawn), the cross sectional area in the path of the meteors of the atmosphere you can see is maximal. And that's why before dawn is best. The earth's spin is a red herring.
There are more bugs on the windshield of a ford transit than on a faster ferrari that overtakes it.
So if a bunch of wannabe-academics come up with a new methodology called the "Scrum-but-without-pair-programming" methodology, which contains everything from scrum except pair programming, and people buy into that, then even if they follow it rigorously, those followers wouldn't be "professional".
All I see there is religion. Only your way is the right way, just replace "professional" with "saved".
The glorious and magnificent modern *science* (it's true - they've got a formula!) of speculation has nothing at all to do with that old-fashioned i-word.
The weird thing is that I remember hearing about Knight Capital a few weeks before this in a similar context - so I think they must have fucked up the same way before (or this is bad reporing, and not "news" any more).
For that much data, I'd recommend just keeping the original HD-DVDs and Blu-ray media for your "20 GB" files, and the original CDs for your "3 MB" files.
We are helping someone back up his music and audio collection, aren't we?
I had presumed it would be VxWorks, as I know they've used it in plenty of previous projects, and it certainly is one of the most capable embedded OSes in existence. By 'verified', do you mean just verifying a HMAC? Why 2 flashes - why not just a bank switch?
> I no longer think of developers as professional if they fail to use these practices.
So anyone who doesn't use pair programming is not being professional? It's unusual to hear tosh as unadulterated as that. Pair programming is useful only if you're employing newbs, idiots, or people otherwise unfit for the role you've given them.
Don't get me wrong, I consider multiple eyes essential. Quite the opposite. However, that kicks in during a process called "review", not "editing".
Slashdot Mirror
> Heck, you can't even crop an ND photo!
You can sometimes crop a cast-iron-copyrighted photo just with your Fair Use rights.
If you take the intersection of the anti-NC and anti-ND arguments, you end up with a basis so broad it could be turned into an anti-BY argument and an anti-SA argument too. Can you not see that BY maintains some elements of proprietoriness?
I think the ultimate freedom is "let the creators decide what they want to let others do with their work", and for that you need the full gamut of licences.
I've noticed that the paper's author works for Duke University's "Think of the chiiiiiildren" department.
You don't think she might not be neutral on this matter, do you?
The NS write-up made no mention of how she isolated the physiological aspects with the sociological aspects. What about drug users who didn't fall in with the "wrong crowd", and what about non-drug users who did fall in with the "wrong crowd" - how do they compare? I reckon all she's measured is the effect of the sociological group you grow up around, not the actual chemicals you put in your bloodstream. If you're doing dope 4 times a week, you're probably not in a particularly cosseting family environment, for example.
That depends on where you're downloading it from, of course.
you ought to - the 'proprio-' bit of the word comes from the latin for self, it it taking for oneself, not dividing or sharing.
> The idea of the CC license
Oh for pity's sake - there is *MORE THAN ONE* CC license.
Yes, I am shouting - you are being thick. Your entire argument seems to be based on total misapprehensions.
> I'm a software developer and any ND or NC license is useless for me. ...
> What is commercial? I develop a free open source tool and release it on my site, but the site have ads from Google, or it have other commercial applications there, too. Can't do that with a NC license.
You completely misunderstand CC-NC. You are the copyright owner, you can do what the hell you like with your own software, the NC clause doesn't limit you, only others. However, it's probably best that your software isn't released, if you're too stupid to understand the NC clause, then I don't trust you to be able to write competent software.
> Why to share your work in the first place?
What a mind-bogglingly stupid question. You do it so that others can enjoy your work, or make use of your work, and possibly pass it on to others who will do the same. Or maybe even just to garnour cheap publicity for yourself, such that those who hear of you may approach you for your skills in a commercial context.
Why do you have such a blinkered black-and-white all-or-nothing mind? A girl who's happy to chat you you in the pub shouldn't be obligated to let you have sex with her - just because you can enjoy the pleasure of her company briefly doesn't mean that you should be able to do whatever you like with her.
> So, if dropping NC and ND results in a single work being relicensed under a free license, this would be a benefit.
Even if thousands of equally skillfully crafted works were no longer released under any CC license and kept proprietory because the NC or ND clause was deemed too important?
I cannot subscribe to that point of view.
> NC and ND basically say: That work is free but only if you are not using it for Xxxx and Zzzz. Which means it is not free at all.
No, it means that it is not entirely free. Being "not free at all" would mean there are no freedoms; but there are some freedoms, so your terminology is little more than an emotively charged gross exageration.
No - he wants people to be able to redistribute his work non-commercially, and make derivative works from it.
That's the exact opposite of normal plain copyright.
What if I take some CC-SA poem and put it to a tune of my own penning, and commercially publish that song (either as sheet music, or recorded)? Is it just the lyrics I have to share-alike, or the whole song?
And if I mix some CC-SA samples into a track that I sell commercially? Is it just those samples I have to share alike, or my whole song?
1/(.189Hz) is 5.3s
Doesn't the sampling theorem mean you need at least 10.6s of sample to reconstruct suhch a frequency? That makes me think you'd need that length of sample to measure such a frequency too. (Dunno, I lost all my DSP smarts many years back.)
Moreover, having a component at a particular frequency doesn't make it a note at a particular frequency. Modulate a 5s 'wah-wah-wah' with your mouth over a normal tone, and you'll measure a 0.2Hz component using FFT analysis. (Which is why single-bit very-high-frequency PWM works for transmitting normal-frequency audio - simply damp to reconstruct.)
You're mostly right. In your lowest frequencies, it's not your vocal cords that are clicking, it's another set of membranes right next to the vocal cords. Those clicks are obviously harsher and full of harmonics, as they're generating square waves. (This gives Metallica vocals their distinctive sound, for example.)
/Ghengis Blues/, and anything I've mentioned sounds interesting, I highly recommend watching it. It's a very touching movie as well as a very interesting one.
If you don't go quite as low, and try to keep your voice as pure as possible, and then *at the same frequency* go all Hetfield-like and back to pure again you'll hear, and feel, the difference. With a bit of practice you'll be able to precisely pick the balance between the use of two membranes at will.
With infinitely more practice, you'll be able to get those other membranes vibrating at half the frequency of your vocal chords, at which point you'll be well on the way to mastering one of the Tuvan harmonic singing techniques.
It's clear from some of the youtube links that have been posted that this guy is effectively just using the same kind of technique, and whilst it's very impressive for what it is, his parps are way less musical than say Paul Pena's harmonic singing, which was reaching an octive below normal ranges. (And which caused the Tuvans to nickname him "Earthquake".) If you've not seen the film
As for the "infrasonic" claims in TFA, they're mostly bullcrap. He may be able to modulate sound pressure waves at those frequencies, but so can I - by breathing normally.
Not just one fewer potential sale - maybe hundreds, or millions, depending on who that reviewer is.
Hmmm, the most influential reviewers tend to get freebies rather than having to pay money for things - which of course makes their review even less objective, and less reliable as a reviewer.
Fair Use covers a lot more than just making backups. It permits you to even broadcast, i.e. indiscriminate dissemination to the masses, not just a single transfter to a known individual, parts of copyrighted material.
The whole idea of the free market is based on letting traders perform this "interference".
> ["steal"]'s used for effect, rather than substance.
Unlike "piracy", which was never supposed to dress the crime of propagating information up as being in any way sinister, no, not at all!
Nope, because to appropriate is to take for oneself, and thus to deny the original owner such access. (And to take something means you don't leave it, similarly.)
How did the UK go from the 1900s smogs to the cleaner breathable air it has today? Thanks to government intervention and legislation. How did the government finance what it did? Through taxes.
So yes, if you're in a built up area, you do pay taxes for your air.
"""
For meteor showers the statement "before dawn" is correct for virtually everyone, anywhere. The reason is simple: the Earth is rotating towards the forward motion of our orbital path and we tend to run into the most particles (meteors) at that time. Bugs on a windshield.
"""
The earth's rotation on its axis being the important thing makes no geometric sense. The forward motion will be minimal for those at midday, nearest the sun, and effectively spinning in the opposite direction of the earth's orbit. The forward motion will maximal for those at midnight, with the earth's spin adding to the earth's velocity. Half way between the two for those at dawn.
The only reason that seems to make geometric sense is that the angle of incidence will be shallower for those at midnight than for those at dawn, and therefore a smaller slice of the meteor shower is intersected by the field of vision. Face on (at dawn), the cross sectional area in the path of the meteors of the atmosphere you can see is maximal. And that's why before dawn is best. The earth's spin is a red herring.
There are more bugs on the windshield of a ford transit than on a faster ferrari that overtakes it.
So if a bunch of wannabe-academics come up with a new methodology called the "Scrum-but-without-pair-programming" methodology, which contains everything from scrum except pair programming, and people buy into that, then even if they follow it rigorously, those followers wouldn't be "professional".
All I see there is religion. Only your way is the right way, just replace "professional" with "saved".
Argh - you mentioned the i-word. Twice!
The glorious and magnificent modern *science* (it's true - they've got a formula!) of speculation has nothing at all to do with that old-fashioned i-word.
The weird thing is that I remember hearing about Knight Capital a few weeks before this in a similar context - so I think they must have fucked up the same way before (or this is bad reporing, and not "news" any more).
For that much data, I'd recommend just keeping the original HD-DVDs and Blu-ray media for your "20 GB" files, and the original CDs for your "3 MB" files.
We are helping someone back up his music and audio collection, aren't we?
And they won't be pirated, will they?
I had presumed it would be VxWorks, as I know they've used it in plenty of previous projects, and it certainly is one of the most capable embedded OSes in existence. By 'verified', do you mean just verifying a HMAC? Why 2 flashes - why not just a bank switch?
> I no longer think of developers as professional if they fail to use these practices.
So anyone who doesn't use pair programming is not being professional? It's unusual to hear tosh as unadulterated as that. Pair programming is useful only if you're employing newbs, idiots, or people otherwise unfit for the role you've given them.
Don't get me wrong, I consider multiple eyes essential. Quite the opposite. However, that kicks in during a process called "review", not "editing".