With well-chosen metaphors (datatypes are kinda like odometers) Ignoring that this is a simile and not a metaphor, does that make a lick of sense to anyone? Datatypes are kinda like odometers? Fingers are kinda like distributor caps. I thought I knew C++ but obviously I missed something in my studies
How is a raven like a writing desk
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
if you're looking for some sort of substance to your movies, you aren't going to find it in an animated movie.... But somehow Jon Katz thinks it will be in Shaft?
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
1. It's a remake therefore as original as Lost in Space, Godzilla, Car 54, Dennis the Menace, The Avengers, etc. The future of Hollywood seems to be Nick at Nite reruns.
2. Samuel Jackson has been playing Shaft since Pulp Fiction who cares anymore?
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
No really we aren't a big evil media conglomerate since we joined with Time-Warner... uh... look we opened up our messenger. As much as respect stepping down from a childish pissing contest, this doesn't show a damn thing, except maybe the FTC is easily placated.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
And as for paying the RIAA to determine who gets big and who doesn't... That's just an excuse for weakness of will. They don't force you to buy anything you don't want to buy. If the only things that you want to buy are what you see advertisements, i mean video's, for on MTV, then of course you're going to be buying the lowest common denominator of muisc. If I want to buy a CD by anyone incapable of starting their own label and having the resources to cut an album themselves, I have to get through a mass market label like geffen. These people don't just put out MTV tripe, they put out decent artists too, you just don't hear about them as much.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
I wish you'd say something dumb, it would give much more credibility to my argument and my status as an armchair copyright lawyer, as is I have to defend myself against legitimate points, and that just sucks:)
Once again I agree. In a semantic kind of argument I would say however that converting "Meme Machine" shouldn't qualify as expanding, but just as reprinting, which if you were making money off of the webpage it should definately be illegal. What really annoys me about copyrights are that they can also stop the second case, intelligent discussion, if the owner doesn't want it.
The problem is that the law doesn't recognise well enough that they are dissimilar in theory
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Yes, someone might have come up with it later but the fact of the matter is that this person thought of it first. Just like we reward people who reach objects or do things first we reward people for thinking of things faster. And I think that's the fundamental flaw with all of this, I don't see why we should reward people to this extent for just being first. Granted we don't remember the second person to cross the Atlantic solo (at least I don't), but should the first person to do that have a copyright on it?
Now this person who might think of it second can take what the first person did and expand on it and get there own copyright/patent if what they expand on is orginal. Ideally yes, but look at how the Church of Scientology get's disparaging remarks censored, by saying that the text of their religion is copyrighted and this person is infringing on that by commenting on it. It doesn't matter that they are making commentary that is probably covered under fair use, they can't afford to take this to court and thanks to the DMCA they have to prove themsselves innocent before they can bring it back online (in the case of a webpage).
And it's not like the thought is automatically patented as it comes out of the persons mind. They have to put it down and take it in and have it covered. You don't get a patent but you do get a copyright as soon as you put it down. Copyright is awarded at conception (no pro-{life|choice} jokes please).
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
isn't it more childish to see someone elses work, make slight changes to it, then claim it as your own? Most definately, but I feel (more like wish) society should be the ones keeping tabs on that. If I look at someone who has just photocopied "Persistence of Memory", I think it should be up to the community to look at it and say "This is bullshit, get outta here you hack." On the other hand, if someone can expand intelligently on someone elses work, then that shouldn't be stiffled just because it was someone elses IP IMHO.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
I wouldn't mind paying $15 dollars for a CD if the band saw more than 10% of that. What I disagree with is paying the RIAA to maintain a stranglehold on the music industry and decide who's gonna be the next "Beatles". Music shouldn't be marketing, but that's what you're paying at $15 a CD.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
This all boils down to who owns an idea, just because someone came up with it first doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't have later. It seems childish to me to have this "I got here first" attitude about thoughts.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
I agree, but I also respect the position that the new GR is trying to take. Overall I think they should shun non-free and if it's that much of a pain in the ass make a dedicated effort to replace the stuff from non-free.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
By removing non-free they are not disallowing Netscape, JDK, or anything else in non-free to be packaged as.debs they are just trying to remove it from the Official Debian Archives, they also claim that they are still willing to support users of non-free software they just don't want to be distributing it themselves anymore.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Actually by asking what TLD's were going away he was making an effort to learn what the conversation was about. And standing up for his principles. I don't see how you can fault him for that.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
I mean what are your goals in setting this up. Is there more to it than money and the inherant coolness of running a data haven? Who is helping fund this endevor (if you can give that out), and how did you pitch it to them? Mostly I'd like to know how you feel knowing that while being one of the more prominant defenses (technologically speaking) of free speech, you're also creating a harbor for alot of illegal activity.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
<IANAL> I would hope it's not just a copyright concept, but maybe you're right. However in an amazing turn of fate, to make my post more credible I paid more attention to the letter. According to the letter the lawyer sent they're actually threating copyright infringement on their logo's, sounds, etc.
Either way I'm sure there's very little legal ground for this otherwise I could be sued for saying Disney, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, etc. couldn't I? </IANAL>
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
It really is a damn shame that companies can use trademark protection and copyright protection to screw these people and still come out smelling lemony fresh. What scum.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
has over the past two months equated to making it obvious that they put random cute tripe over basic security. The Office Assistant is a security hole? How does it seem remotely sane to mark an ActiveX Control, that gives complete user level control over the office suite to a webpage, safe for scripting. "We at Microsoft feel that the hackers (crackers whatever shut up) will realize that Clippy is so cute and helpful that it would be just wrong to use him for evil."
Meanwhile new security holes in Hotmail, Internet Explorer, and Office are found daily and have to be exposed to the world either through mass mailing virii or by at the very least explaining in detail to every Skript Kiddie out there how to exploit that bug, just to get Microsoft to fucking accknowledge that there is a problem. Yeah a lack of basic security, and a refusal to ever obtain it is really goddamn impressive innovation.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Slashdot Mirror
With well-chosen metaphors (datatypes are kinda like odometers)
Ignoring that this is a simile and not a metaphor, does that make a lick of sense to anyone? Datatypes are kinda like odometers? Fingers are kinda like distributor caps. I thought I knew C++ but obviously I missed something in my studies
How is a raven like a writing desk
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
if you're looking for some sort of substance to your movies, you aren't going to find it in an animated movie....
But somehow Jon Katz thinks it will be in Shaft?
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
1. It's a remake therefore as original as Lost in Space, Godzilla, Car 54, Dennis the Menace, The Avengers, etc. The future of Hollywood seems to be Nick at Nite reruns.
2. Samuel Jackson has been playing Shaft since Pulp Fiction who cares anymore?
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
As much as respect stepping down from a childish pissing contest, this doesn't show a damn thing, except maybe the FTC is easily placated.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
And as for paying the RIAA to determine who gets big and who doesn't... That's just an excuse for weakness of will. They don't force you to buy anything you don't want to buy. If the only things that you want to buy are what you see advertisements, i mean video's, for on MTV, then of course you're going to be buying the lowest common denominator of muisc.
If I want to buy a CD by anyone incapable of starting their own label and having the resources to cut an album themselves, I have to get through a mass market label like geffen. These people don't just put out MTV tripe, they put out decent artists too, you just don't hear about them as much.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
I wish you'd say something dumb, it would give much more credibility to my argument and my status as an armchair copyright lawyer, as is I have to defend myself against legitimate points, and that just sucks :)
Once again I agree. In a semantic kind of argument I would say however that converting "Meme Machine" shouldn't qualify as expanding, but just as reprinting, which if you were making money off of the webpage it should definately be illegal.
What really annoys me about copyrights are that they can also stop the second case, intelligent discussion, if the owner doesn't want it.
The problem is that the law doesn't recognise well enough that they are dissimilar in theory
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Yes, someone might have come up with it later but the fact of the matter is that this person thought of it first. Just like we reward people who reach objects or do things first we reward people for thinking of things faster.
And I think that's the fundamental flaw with all of this, I don't see why we should reward people to this extent for just being first. Granted we don't remember the second person to cross the Atlantic solo (at least I don't), but should the first person to do that have a copyright on it?
Now this person who might think of it second can take what the first person did and expand on it and get there own copyright/patent if what they expand on is orginal.
Ideally yes, but look at how the Church of Scientology get's disparaging remarks censored, by saying that the text of their religion is copyrighted and this person is infringing on that by commenting on it. It doesn't matter that they are making commentary that is probably covered under fair use, they can't afford to take this to court and thanks to the DMCA they have to prove themsselves innocent before they can bring it back online (in the case of a webpage).
And it's not like the thought is automatically patented as it comes out of the persons mind. They have to put it down and take it in and have it covered.
You don't get a patent but you do get a copyright as soon as you put it down. Copyright is awarded at conception (no pro-{life|choice} jokes please).
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
isn't it more childish to see someone elses work, make slight changes to it, then claim it as your own?
Most definately, but I feel (more like wish) society should be the ones keeping tabs on that. If I look at someone who has just photocopied "Persistence of Memory", I think it should be up to the community to look at it and say "This is bullshit, get outta here you hack." On the other hand, if someone can expand intelligently on someone elses work, then that shouldn't be stiffled just because it was someone elses IP IMHO.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
That I'm a B1FF or that I'm cool?
If I'm a B1FF then you've just been trolled. If I'm Cool then thanks.
I suppose your moniker says it all about you too.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
I mean what are your goals in setting this up. Is there more to it than money and the inherant coolness of running a data haven? Who is helping fund this endevor (if you can give that out), and how did you pitch it to them? Mostly I'd like to know how you feel knowing that while being one of the more prominant defenses (technologically speaking) of free speech, you're also creating a harbor for alot of illegal activity.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
<IANAL>
I would hope it's not just a copyright concept, but maybe you're right. However in an amazing turn of fate, to make my post more credible I paid more attention to the letter. According to the letter the lawyer sent they're actually threating copyright infringement on their logo's, sounds, etc.
Either way I'm sure there's very little legal ground for this otherwise I could be sued for saying Disney, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, etc. couldn't I?
</IANAL>
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
What scum.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
has over the past two months equated to making it obvious that they put random cute tripe over basic security. The Office Assistant is a security hole? How does it seem remotely sane to mark an ActiveX Control, that gives complete user level control over the office suite to a webpage, safe for scripting.
"We at Microsoft feel that the hackers (crackers whatever shut up) will realize that Clippy is so cute and helpful that it would be just wrong to use him for evil."
Meanwhile new security holes in Hotmail, Internet Explorer, and Office are found daily and have to be exposed to the world either through mass mailing virii or by at the very least explaining in detail to every Skript Kiddie out there how to exploit that bug, just to get Microsoft to fucking accknowledge that there is a problem. Yeah a lack of basic security, and a refusal to ever obtain it is really goddamn impressive innovation.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.