Only one very large problem with your logic.
Clinton deregulated the power grid, not Bush.
It was Bush senior who ordered the deregulation in 92 just before he left office, not Clinton. The deregulation may have occured in 97-98 but the process started much earler.
Downloading MAY be legal; perhaps you can convince the judge that you thought that because the files were available, that the copyright holder had approved it.
I've been wondering about that. How can a receiver of a product possibly know that something is copyrighted or not and even if it were, that it isn't licenced for free distribution.
It's the act of making files (esp. music) available for OTHERS to download that is totally illegal.
Not necessarily and by the same logic as above. Not all files (even music) are covered by copyright and even those that are may be freely distributable. Moreover, even if they are copyrighted and not specially licenced for free distribution, how is one to know that it isn't? I see (or hear) no copyright messages on shared music files to indicate that I can't (this is assuming that the distributor of the file hasn't created the file himself from an original, legal source such as a CD where copyright is clearly indicated) Are we therefore to assume that all music ever created is "owned" by the RIAA? That's a rhetorical question of course because the actions of the RIAA and the legislators answer in the affirmitive.
Thus, in the analogy, the SELLER of the fake watch is culpable, the BUYER was deceived. Whether or not the buyer SHOULD have known better isn't relevant.
True, but the analogy is flawed to begin with. The passing off of a trademarked item is an entirely different part of "Intellectual Property" law and one of the reasons why we shouldn't talk of IP but of it's constituent parts -- copyright, patents and trademarks.
I think this guy is failing to grasp the implications of the 'loudness' of Vapor Trails. Yes, it is quite 'loud'. It definately SOUNDS louder than previous Rush CDs. But this has nothing to do with the engineering of the album. It has to do with the sound that Rush was trying to make.
It might not have anything to do with the engineering of the album but it has everything to do with the mastering. Whenever the waveform is clipped then it's a mastering problem and that's the point of the article.
If you want to make a louder album you don't do it by exceeding the CD specification but by careful balancing of the dynamic. Something Rush did in all probability. Unfortunately for them and us, the mastering process is controlled by the record company.
Man that really bugs me. Linux does not live or die by GNU alone. It is a system, and yes, GNU is part of that system, but so is Xfree86, so is GNOME, KDE, etc.
The GNU project doesn't suggest the GNU/Linux tag simply because GNU is part of the OS.
Have a read of the original article
for the real reasons. Agree with it or not, that's up to you, but if you're going to complain about something, can I politely suggest that you complain about what was said and not what you think has been said.
The whole of the world can benefit from the BBC free of charge and advert free (not least the excellent BBC web site; linked from this very/. story) and yet, for some reason, they feel the need to bash the system that allows them to do that. I can understand UKers complaining but then again, the UKers who do complain seem to think the licence fee funds BBC1, BBC2 and nothing else.
Personally, I think the licence fee is outstanding value.
Extra credit to anyone who can name a language that treats whitespace either as completely neutral in all situation (including tabs and end of line markers
Rexx, or at least the ARexx variant, completely ignores white space, IIRC.
Well, linux is not unix. Technically... though this article seems to believe otherwise.
No it doesn't. Several paragraphs were expended explaining the difference between SCO's idea of UNIX (direct descendent of the original UNIX code), the Opengroup's idea of UNIX (whether it conforms to the UNIX 98 standard and thus trademarkable), and other, "non-genetic" UNIX like systems (such as GNU/Linux, and the open BSDs). At no point is GNU/Linux described as UNIX.
JWST will be great for its intended mission [...] it will be at a lagrange point, and therefore completely unserviceable.
The lagrange point in question is Lagrange Point 2 (L2) of the Earth-Sun system. A notable characteristic of L2 is that it is always on the night side of Earth orbit (ie. the Earth is always
in between L2 and the Sun). Clearly, this is advantageous for a telescope like the James Webb.
As a side note, L1 is opposite to L2 and is therefore, always on the day side. As might be expected, L1 is currently occupied by The Solar and Helioscopic Observatory, or SOHO
Further, the reason why satellites at either of these points are (currently) unservicable is simply a consequence of distance; approx. 100th of 1 AU, or, 4 times the distance of Earth to Moon.
"Who modded him informative? Of course it won't work because he uses C++ keywords as variable names!"
Err, that was the whole point. It's a valid C program but not a valid C++ program, therefore C++ isn't a superset of C.
Argh! No it isn't! If C++ were a superset, all valid
C programs would be valid C++ programs. This is obvious tripe.
Presumably, this doesn't compile with your C++ compiler.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) { int class, try, catch;
class = try + catch;
printf ("%d\n", class);
return 0; }
Re:Before all the flamers get in.
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 1
actually.. x DOES use the network layer when applications are running on the same host as the x server.. they use a named pipe instead of an INET socket.. but none the less, everything is encoded in the X protocol, transmitted over the socket , and decoded at the other end. surely we can eliminate this?
They use a UNIX socket, not a named pipe (similar concepts admittedly but they do differ); and the UNIX socket implementation on Linux (and all other UNIX like systems I'm aware of) has the optimization for local sockets that equates to a simple memory move.
In a nutshell, the network layer does not impact performance if the client and server are the same machine.
BZZT wrong. You have that EU directive which affects EVERY EU member.
BZZT wrong. Individual member states have to implement EU directives in their own countries in their own way. The EUCD has not been ratified in Finland yet.
Scientology is based on space aliens attacking earth and cave men flying space ships to fight them.
Is it ?! I didn't realise that. It sounds very Von Daniken TBH. I should give Von Daniken his due though, and say that he hasn't made a religion out of his beliefs, only a themepark.
Serious question: What has Battlefield Earth got to do with Scientology, apart from Ron Hubbard? Are there scientology themes in the book/movie that I don't know about?
I have no time for scientology (or any other religion for that matter) but Ron Hubbard has always struck me as a pretty good author and I see no reason to ignore his SF just because I dislike the dianetic and scientology movements -- so many people seem to recoil at his name and dismiss his fictional work simply because of the association.
In fact, before Hubbard wrote "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" for Amazing Stories (which Campbell foolishly published), Hubbard was one of the more popular SF writers.
How does the existance of lunatic psychology theories detract from his works of Science Fiction?
(I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm not
a raging Hubbard fan. I just happen to think he's a pretty good example of the Golden Age SF author.)
> Don't forget the second-hand Russian spacesuits,
Why do you think the spacesuits are second-hand? Because they're Russian I suppose. However, a careful examination of the Guardian article (I like to call it reading, but I wouldn't dream of accusing you of not having read past the second paragraph), reveals this
"This summer, wearing the new Russian spacesuits tested yesterday, they will try again."
(I've helpfully highlighted the word "new" in the hope that it will penetrate the polarising filter
on the anti-Russian spectacles some people still seem to be wearing.)
And much better than speakers is a decent set of headphones. Cans will beat speakers costing several times as much. Get a pair of cheaper Sennheisers (HD487's) or Grado's (SR 60's)
The SR80s may be more to some people's taste. They
have a brighter, clearer sound that I prefer. IIRC, they're only 20 or 30 UK pounds more expensive.
I'm sorry but you can't honestly sit there and with a straight face tell me the economic downturn is solely reponsible for the lower sales of albums. While I'm sure this is some, if not most of the , reason for the lackluster sales, Napster and its ilk have definitely had an impact on how, what and if people purchase albums.
Evidence please? The only evidence you can possibly point to is a decrese in record sales; which is just as easily and more convincingly explained away by the economic depression. For some reason though, you seem to think that a downturn in the economy isn't a good enough reason for people to cut back on frivilous expenditure.
Basically, he says that the 9/11 attacks were heinous crimes,
that the islamic terrorists want to destroy free thought and
liberty (no news flash there), and that the reaction of both the
Left and Right are wrong.
How do you know they want to destroy "free thought and liberty"?
I follow this stuff pretty closely and I've never heard any
statement from an islamic terrorist organisation saying that they
do.
Slashdot Mirror
It was Bush senior who ordered the deregulation in 92 just before he left office, not Clinton. The deregulation may have occured in 97-98 but the process started much earler.
I've been wondering about that. How can a receiver of a product possibly know that something is copyrighted or not and even if it were, that it isn't licenced for free distribution.
Not necessarily and by the same logic as above. Not all files (even music) are covered by copyright and even those that are may be freely distributable. Moreover, even if they are copyrighted and not specially licenced for free distribution, how is one to know that it isn't? I see (or hear) no copyright messages on shared music files to indicate that I can't (this is assuming that the distributor of the file hasn't created the file himself from an original, legal source such as a CD where copyright is clearly indicated) Are we therefore to assume that all music ever created is "owned" by the RIAA? That's a rhetorical question of course because the actions of the RIAA and the legislators answer in the affirmitive.
True, but the analogy is flawed to begin with. The passing off of a trademarked item is an entirely different part of "Intellectual Property" law and one of the reasons why we shouldn't talk of IP but of it's constituent parts -- copyright, patents and trademarks.
If you're talking about audio CDs, the Redbook says 79 minutes.
This is off-topic, but Shakespeare did have a formal education and a pretty good one at that. Here's a link
It might not have anything to do with the engineering of the album but it has everything to do with the mastering. Whenever the waveform is clipped then it's a mastering problem and that's the point of the article.
If you want to make a louder album you don't do it by exceeding the CD specification but by careful balancing of the dynamic. Something Rush did in all probability. Unfortunately for them and us, the mastering process is controlled by the record company.
No, you haven't read and/or understood the "polite appeal" because you're continuing to misrepresent it.
No. That's not the reason. Go read the link.
The GNU project doesn't suggest the GNU/Linux tag simply because GNU is part of the OS. Have a read of the original article for the real reasons. Agree with it or not, that's up to you, but if you're going to complain about something, can I politely suggest that you complain about what was said and not what you think has been said.
The whole of the world can benefit from the BBC free of charge and advert free (not least the excellent BBC web site; linked from this very /. story) and yet, for some reason, they feel the need to bash the system that allows them to do that. I can understand UKers complaining but then again, the UKers who do complain seem to think the licence fee funds BBC1, BBC2 and nothing else.
Personally, I think the licence fee is outstanding value.
Rexx, or at least the ARexx variant, completely ignores white space, IIRC.
I do hope you're joking. How can a system that disallows men and women their own vote be described as a democracy?
No it doesn't. Several paragraphs were expended explaining the difference between SCO's idea of UNIX (direct descendent of the original UNIX code), the Opengroup's idea of UNIX (whether it conforms to the UNIX 98 standard and thus trademarkable), and other, "non-genetic" UNIX like systems (such as GNU/Linux, and the open BSDs). At no point is GNU/Linux described as UNIX.
The lagrange point in question is Lagrange Point 2 (L2) of the Earth-Sun system. A notable characteristic of L2 is that it is always on the night side of Earth orbit (ie. the Earth is always in between L2 and the Sun). Clearly, this is advantageous for a telescope like the James Webb.
As a side note, L1 is opposite to L2 and is therefore, always on the day side. As might be expected, L1 is currently occupied by The Solar and Helioscopic Observatory, or SOHO
Further, the reason why satellites at either of these points are (currently) unservicable is simply a consequence of distance; approx. 100th of 1 AU, or, 4 times the distance of Earth to Moon.
"Who modded him informative? Of course it won't work because he uses C++ keywords as variable names!" Err, that was the whole point. It's a valid C program but not a valid C++ program, therefore C++ isn't a superset of C.
Argh! No it isn't! If C++ were a superset, all valid C programs would be valid C++ programs. This is obvious tripe.
Presumably, this doesn't compile with your C++ compiler.
They use a UNIX socket, not a named pipe (similar concepts admittedly but they do differ); and the UNIX socket implementation on Linux (and all other UNIX like systems I'm aware of) has the optimization for local sockets that equates to a simple memory move.
In a nutshell, the network layer does not impact performance if the client and server are the same machine.
What in the world does any of that have to do with socialism?
BZZT wrong. Individual member states have to implement EU directives in their own countries in their own way. The EUCD has not been ratified in Finland yet.
If that paragraph doesn't scare the pants off of you, it should. Why should I or anyone else have to prove our innocence to a private company?
Is it ?! I didn't realise that. It sounds very Von Daniken TBH. I should give Von Daniken his due though, and say that he hasn't made a religion out of his beliefs, only a themepark.
Serious question: What has Battlefield Earth got to do with Scientology, apart from Ron Hubbard? Are there scientology themes in the book/movie that I don't know about?
I have no time for scientology (or any other religion for that matter) but Ron Hubbard has always struck me as a pretty good author and I see no reason to ignore his SF just because I dislike the dianetic and scientology movements -- so many people seem to recoil at his name and dismiss his fictional work simply because of the association. In fact, before Hubbard wrote "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" for Amazing Stories (which Campbell foolishly published), Hubbard was one of the more popular SF writers.
How does the existance of lunatic psychology theories detract from his works of Science Fiction?
(I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm not a raging Hubbard fan. I just happen to think he's a pretty good example of the Golden Age SF author.)
> Don't forget the second-hand Russian spacesuits,
Why do you think the spacesuits are second-hand? Because they're Russian I suppose. However, a careful examination of the Guardian article (I like to call it reading, but I wouldn't dream of accusing you of not having read past the second paragraph), reveals this
"This summer, wearing the new Russian spacesuits tested yesterday, they will try again."
(I've helpfully highlighted the word "new" in the hope that it will penetrate the polarising filter on the anti-Russian spectacles some people still seem to be wearing.)
The SR80s may be more to some people's taste. They have a brighter, clearer sound that I prefer. IIRC, they're only 20 or 30 UK pounds more expensive.
It's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Two completely different concepts.
Evidence please? The only evidence you can possibly point to is a decrese in record sales; which is just as easily and more convincingly explained away by the economic depression. For some reason though, you seem to think that a downturn in the economy isn't a good enough reason for people to cut back on frivilous expenditure.
How do you know they want to destroy "free thought and liberty"? I follow this stuff pretty closely and I've never heard any statement from an islamic terrorist organisation saying that they do.