I would argue that one of the goals of post modernism was to disconnect the artist from the art.
There are plenty of excellent examples of art throughout history that were criticised (by contemporary critics) as souless, yet later lauded as great works (usually long after the artists death;)
As a followup, I have a friend whose band was signed by an unnamed record label. Said record label failed to bring their album to market, but now own EVERYTHING the band made (and will ever make while the contract is good). And according to the SAME contract, the owner of said works belong to the Company, "in perpetuity, throughout the Universe" (this is an exact quote).
Keep in mind that this is a boilerplate contract, and almost all record contracts have similar wording.
Thousands and thousands of bands that ARE lucky enough to get signed get screwed daily (and voluntarily), and somehow this is a "functioning" free market.
You have just described the situation exactly as it is in another country that has strong copyright laws. The US. The life of a unsigned or unknown band in this country is almost identical to the one you just described, except that their battles involve their record companies (if they are lucky enough to get signed). Out of all these bands, perhaps 20-30 per year are lucky enough to get an album into Tower Records or the Wherehouse, and perhaps 10 per year get radio play.
So our system enable 30 bands per year (out of thousands and thousands of unknown bands) to make a seriously fat paycheck per year, and you have the gall to say that copyrights WORK in this country?
If you don't like this patent then attack the rules that made it possible, not Amazon. Amazon are a company persuing their fudiciary responsibilities to their shareholders, and of course they're going to take every avenue possible to increase their revenue streams.
This is quite possibly one of the most disturbing statements I have EVER had the misfortune of reading.
You are saying that a corporation should be able to do whatever they want to, as long as its legal?
After all, its just trying to "persue their fudiciary responsiblilites."
If they do something DESPICABLY legal, nobody is allowed to complain? They did nothing wrong, since, hey, they need to make a profit?
I spend my entire day taking existing tools, and using them to complete a project (presumably one that has never been done precisely the way I am doing it).
Do I deserve a patent EVERY time I work on my project and come up with a solution to a the task at hand?
Or is the argument that nobody else BUT me is capable of coming up with my solution because they aren't as smart?
Or that I deserve a patent because I _personally_ came up with a solution before anybody else (despite the fact that this particular project was assigned to me and me alone)?
"One-click shopping" is no more complex than any of a million different things engineers come up with every day to solve a problem they are confronted with. If anything, it is something a *first year college student* could come up with if somebody asked him to use cookies to enhance the end-users' order experience.
Unfortunately, that last bit is exactly what is missing from the Constitution, namely, that the person securing the copyright MUST distribute the information with no other restrictions than enforced by the copyright itself.
Subsequent copyright/patent law does cover some of the obligations of a copyright/patent holder, but they are NOT mentioned by the Constitution itself.
If ACT really wants to see a "fair" playing field unfettered by government invention, how about they ask the government to refuse to enforce MS's patents and copyrights? Keep that up for a period of say, 5 years, and the market should stabilize again.. and MS would be FORCED to actually innovate and stay ahead of imitators.
What a sad, pathetic special interest group. Of course, no matter how completely asinine their mission statement sounds, they have the money to shove whatever they see fit down Washington's throat.
What happens if we were to all join up and subvert it from the inside? C'mon everybody, join and start e-mailing them your input. As a concerned member, they have to listen to you;)
If they had a CLUE they would use QoS and other techniques to shape napster traffic. A trained monky can do this even on Cisco's LOWEST end 2500 T1 box. But they don't, and they don't.
If you ask me, they are either lazy, or looking for an excuse to buckle that won't attract the ire of their students.
The GPL is a response to both copyrights, and draconian IP laws. Without copyrights or IP, it wouldn't be needed. It simply prevents anybody else from copying somebody elses code, and THEN copyrighting and/or patenting it (read: buy their very own government sanctioned monopoly).
If our copyright/IP laws weren't so hopelessly screwed up, we wouldn't need the GPL.
I'll point out that patents and copyrights are in the US Constitution; the idea that they are the result of "lobbying" is literally ridiculous.
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 8:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
One line. Nothing about patents, copyrights, or their durations.
Where does the REST of our fucked up system spring from?
How about the thoughts of a founding father (on patents):
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
What the fuck does this mean? If it costs money to produce then money will be charged for production (this is ECONS 101). It costs a doctor nothing to look at a rash on my hand or listen to my cough and get a diagnosis, but it costs money for me to get this service. Guess why? It cost a lot of money to imbue the doctor with his knowledge and to provide the doctor with medical equipment. The only information that wants to be free is information that is valueless.
You are mixing SERVICES with PRODUCT. If a doctor looks at my hand, and listens to my cough, thats 30 minutes he CAN'T look at somebody else's hand or listen to their cough.
Slashdot Mirror
EQ basically DikuMud on the back end.
A common misconception.
It was written by Eric Idle for Meaning of Life.
Eric Idle NOT Monty Python wrote the song. It was used in Meaning of Life. Case closed. You could look it up.
Let me get this straight. The treaty makes things that are illegal... illegal?
I would argue that one of the goals of post modernism was to disconnect the artist from the art.
;)
There are plenty of excellent examples of art throughout history that were criticised (by contemporary critics) as souless, yet later lauded as great works (usually long after the artists death
http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/ias/pub-dept/abbreviation. pdf
Not there.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html
Hrm not there either.
http://computer.org/author/style/mno.htm
Fer crying out loud, not there EITHER!
Put up or shut up now, troll.
Wow, what other kind of makeup could I get at the rouge planet? I could use a nice lip gloss too.
Sorry couldn't let this one go by.. pet peeve of mine. Moderate accordingly.
Indeed i was being charitable.
Out of 30 "successful" bands, only a few actually get a decent cut of the profit after everybody else takes their share.
As a followup, I have a friend whose band was signed by an unnamed record label. Said record label failed to bring their album to market, but now own EVERYTHING the band made (and will ever make while the contract is good). And according to the SAME contract, the owner of said works belong to the Company, "in perpetuity, throughout the Universe" (this is an exact quote).
Keep in mind that this is a boilerplate contract, and almost all record contracts have similar wording.
Thousands and thousands of bands that ARE lucky enough to get signed get screwed daily (and voluntarily), and somehow this is a "functioning" free market.
You have just described the situation exactly as it is in another country that has strong copyright laws. The US. The life of a unsigned or unknown band in this country is almost identical to the one you just described, except that their battles involve their record companies (if they are lucky enough to get signed). Out of all these bands, perhaps 20-30 per year are lucky enough to get an album into Tower Records or the Wherehouse, and perhaps 10 per year get radio play.
So our system enable 30 bands per year (out of thousands and thousands of unknown bands) to make a seriously fat paycheck per year, and you have the gall to say that copyrights WORK in this country?
Please, spare me.
Oooops.
HEH i should have checked my arithmetic.
100k hits/day:
(gdb) print 100000.0/60/24/24
$1 = 2.8935185185185177
Urm
Thats 3 HITS A SECOND.
Time to fire your CIO.
Quick question (maybe a stupid one)...
Does this miniature magnetosphere have to be turned off everytime you need to talk to your craft?
It would seem to me it might interfere a tad with radio communications...
If you don't like this patent then attack the rules that made it possible, not Amazon. Amazon are a company persuing their fudiciary responsibilities to their shareholders, and of course they're going to take every avenue possible to increase their revenue streams.
This is quite possibly one of the most disturbing statements I have EVER had the misfortune of reading.
You are saying that a corporation should be able to do whatever they want to, as long as its legal?
After all, its just trying to "persue their fudiciary responsiblilites."
If they do something DESPICABLY legal, nobody is allowed to complain? They did nothing wrong, since, hey, they need to make a profit?
Somebody needs an ethics lesson.
Are you referring to the *method* that Amazon uses, or the *idea* of one click shopping.
Answer carefully. Then revisit the laws concerning what is patentable and what is not.
I really don't get this argument.
I spend my entire day taking existing tools, and using them to complete a project (presumably one that has never been done precisely the way I am doing it).
Do I deserve a patent EVERY time I work on my project and come up with a solution to a the task at hand?
Or is the argument that nobody else BUT me is capable of coming up with my solution because they aren't as smart?
Or that I deserve a patent because I _personally_ came up with a solution before anybody else (despite the fact that this particular project was assigned to me and me alone)?
"One-click shopping" is no more complex than any of a million different things engineers come up with every day to solve a problem they are confronted with. If anything, it is something a *first year college student* could come up with if somebody asked him to use cookies to enhance the end-users' order experience.
Big fucking deal.
Unfortunately, that last bit is exactly what is missing from the Constitution, namely, that the person securing the copyright MUST distribute the information with no other restrictions than enforced by the copyright itself.
Subsequent copyright/patent law does cover some of the obligations of a copyright/patent holder, but they are NOT mentioned by the Constitution itself.
If ACT really wants to see a "fair" playing field unfettered by government invention, how about they ask the government to refuse to enforce MS's patents and copyrights? Keep that up for a period of say, 5 years, and the market should stabilize again.. and MS would be FORCED to actually innovate and stay ahead of imitators.
What a sad, pathetic special interest group. Of course, no matter how completely asinine their mission statement sounds, they have the money to shove whatever they see fit down Washington's throat.
What happens if we were to all join up and subvert it from the inside? C'mon everybody, join and start e-mailing them your input. As a concerned member, they have to listen to you ;)
If they had a CLUE they would use QoS and other techniques to shape napster traffic. A trained monky can do this even on Cisco's LOWEST end 2500 T1 box. But they don't, and they don't.
If you ask me, they are either lazy, or looking for an excuse to buckle that won't attract the ire of their students.
The GPL is a response to both copyrights, and draconian IP laws. Without copyrights or IP, it wouldn't be needed. It simply prevents anybody else from copying somebody elses code, and THEN copyrighting and/or patenting it (read: buy their very own government sanctioned monopoly).
If our copyright/IP laws weren't so hopelessly screwed up, we wouldn't need the GPL.
Your while() should be while(<>)
Here's my private archive:
dig @dmca.really.fuckingsucks.net dmca.really.fuckingsucks.net. axfr | grep decss | sort | cut -b5-36 | perl -e 'while(<>){print pack("H32",$_)}' | gunzip -cI'll point out that patents and copyrights are in the US Constitution; the idea that they are the result of "lobbying" is literally ridiculous.
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 8:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
One line. Nothing about patents, copyrights, or their durations.
Where does the REST of our fucked up system spring from?
How about the thoughts of a founding father (on patents):
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
Hmmm, certainly in not there either.
What the fuck does this mean? If it costs money to produce then money will be charged for production (this is ECONS 101). It costs a doctor nothing to look at a rash on my hand or listen to my cough and get a diagnosis, but it costs money for me to get this service. Guess why? It cost a lot of money to imbue the doctor with his knowledge and to provide the doctor with medical equipment. The only information that wants to be free is information that is valueless.
You are mixing SERVICES with PRODUCT. If a doctor looks at my hand, and listens to my cough, thats 30 minutes he CAN'T look at somebody else's hand or listen to their cough.
bleh. stupid html. the "while" should be
while(<>)