Um, I'm not sure which unions you're referring to, but the vast
majority I've experienced have little to no testing for skills,
and once inside have ZERO performance review or internal censure.
Are you dumb? I'm referring to the engineering/medical guilds.
Tech workers should have unionized against this type of abuse
ages ago.
Damned right they should have. Although I see from the other
replies to your post that the word "union" invokes a lot of fear.
I may be advisable to use the word "guild" which seems not to
upset people so.
To the freepers in the house: Why is it that the traditional professions (doctors,
lawyers, engineers, etc) can be (indeed, have to be) unionised
but the computer industry cannot? Would you want just anyone
performing a heart transplant or building a bridge? No, of course
not, so why let just anyone install your computer systems or
write your software? That's what a guild (a union by any other
name) ensures against; only those who are certified can get the
job. I'm genuinely astonished that the computer industry is still
completely unregulated in this regard.
So long as they don't control me I will continue to consider the
world free.
That's a fair view point I suppose (just a wild guess, you're a
middle aged Caucasian male, yes?). I just hope you realise that
if you don't stand up for the people who are being persecuted
right now, then there won't be many people left to stand up for
you when your time comes
Who is "they" anyway, just people and systems, all
changeable.
And how do you propose the systems be changed? I can assure you,
overwhelming them with apathy won't work.
I don't think this theory really washes because Germany could
have easily gained access to windoze source via M$'s abortion of
a program called Shared Source. Of course, billions of lines of
spaghetti code would render such viewing pointless but the source
would be there (for a fee).
True. Moreover, how would you ever know that the source you're
looking at relates to the binary that you've just bought. From
what I can gather, the Shared Source thing doesn't allow you to make
your own binaries.
He never said it was Open Source, but that the suggested business
model is one advocated by the Open Source people. The same
business model that MS advocates say can't work.
How does deciding years later that they aren't "good enough" for
GNU look to the rest of the business world? Is this how OSS
treats it's friends?
GNU is a free software project, not an open source project. The
policy of the Free Software Foundation has *always* been to
question proprietary software. In fact, it was founded as an
antidote to what Stallman saw as the creeping death of
proprietary software in the early 80s.
Your concerns are valid of course, but they were addressed in the
late 90s when the Open Source movement was established.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people"
This basically says that the rights already enumerated are not
the only rights that deserve Constitutional protection.
Therefore, we _know_ that there are other rights besides those
specifically accounted for in the Constitution. Like the parent
poster says, however, agreeing to what those rights _are_ is the
tricky part.
Yes. My comprehension of the parent poster's comment was flawed.
I thought he was saying that the ninth ammendment didn't
enumerate those "certain rights". A little more thought on my
part would have revealed that he couldn't possibly have meant
that.
Many of the responses to this question rely on the fact that when
you buy a DVD, you are buying a license to view the movie. Could
someone please point me to a link where that is argued by the
content owners?
It's got nothing to do with the will of the content owners, it's
inherent in copyright law (DMCA excepted). When you legally
acquire a copy of a copyrighted work you are allowed to do
certain things with it; actions which fall into two categories,
Use and Fair-Use. "Use" would be listening to a CD or watching a
DVD for example. "Fair-use" seems to differ from country to
country but might include such things as watching a DVD with a
couple of your pals or (in the USA at least) making a backup copy
for personal use. The Use and Fair-Use rights you are granted are
in effect, a "licence" to do certain things with a copyrighted
work.
In a nutshell, the DMCA is an attempt to trump "Use" and
"Fair-Use" rights.
The problem with the 9th Ammendment is that (obviously) it
doesn't say what those other rights retained by the people are.
What are the previous 8 ammendment's (and those added since) if
they're not enumerations of rights retained by the people? I'm
not an American so perhaps I'm missing something.
Obviously, nearly anyone CAN copy a CD. Whether one MAY do so is
another matter.
I appreciate your pedantry. However, as I was clearly discussing
the legality of copying CDs, "can" obviously refers to whether
one "can legally" copy a CD.
Moreover, a quick look in my Oxford dictionary reveals that "can"
has a secondary meaning, "have the right to" and a colloquial
meaning, "be permitted to". Webster's offers a similar
definition; "Although there is a formal distinction made between
can to express the ability to do something and may
to express permission, in informal usage can is generally
acceptable to express permission, esp. in questions or negative
statements".
Australia has a similar legal system, based on British common
law.
Their copyright law is likely similar in this regard too.
You can't copy CDs for personal use in Britain as it's not one of
activities listed in the fair use laws -- an activity has to be
explicitely exempted for it to be free from the restrictions
imposed by the copyright laws. See The UK Campaign For Digital Rights
for more info, particularly the FAQ
This was research carried out by the University of Plymouth
It was hardly research. It was an performance set up by the art department. The BBC article you cited says as much; "The project, by students from the university's MediaLab Arts course, received £2,000 from the Arts Council."
I'm not sure I see any real value in their research, but I am concerned about their methodology - that's an awfully small data set (only six monkeys, and only over one month) from which to draw any concrete conclusions...
As I say, this wasn't a scientific experiment and isn't meant to be taken this seriously.
Copyright laws establish property rights.
Once property rights have been established, theft becomes a possibility, so laws regarding theft become enforceable.
This is almost too dumb for words.
According to your reasoning, copyright infringement is in fact a
criminal offence because it's theft of property. I'm glad the
judiciary hasn't realised this yet. All these years people have
been fussing with civil lawsuits when all along it was criminal
offence. Crikey, the DMCA seems almost superfluous using your
logic.
If you can show me one instance where somebody was successfully
prosecuted for theft because they infringed on someone's
copyright then I'll gladly emigrate.
I think that when you are taking recorded audio directly from
another source, and you are incorporating it into your own work,
you should realize that you are stealing.
It's not stealing; if anything, it's copyright infringement.
Stealing refers to the theft of physical property and it's
downright misleading to describe infringement of copyright as
theft.
Like, how retarded ARE you to not figure that out?
I don't know to be honest, but the entire executive and
legislative branch of the British and American governments are
just as retarded as me it seems. I mean, why have copyright laws
at all if the theft laws legislate all of this?
Did you read the link no_choice provided?
The GNU/Linux meme has nothing to do with which apps are used. The GNU prefix is intended
to convey the philosophical ideas behind the free software movement.
A lot of what TUHH rags on has long since been improved.. who
mucks around with/bin/sh, sed and awk now that we have Perl and
Python, after all?
I have no doubt that Perl or Python are more powerful than sed
and awk but the truth is I've never had a need to learn either as
sed and awk always seemed adequate for my modest needs. So to
answer your question, I do.
Figures:-) I had literally read the chapter in Fear and Loathing
just an hour or so ago when this story come up so it seemed like
a good opportunity to express my thoughts while they were still
fresh in my mind.
There really was a club called the Matrix, you can find bootlegs
of Jimi Hendrix, Grateful Dead et al. that are audience tapes of
shows played there.
Great stuff. Thanks for the tip.
Try watching Matrix Reloaded to see what reading material really
inspired the movie.
TBH I was never a big fan of The Matrix so I ignored Reloaded,
but I shall acquire a copy based on your recommendation.
I'm currently reading "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" by Hunter
S. Thompson and was struck by a passing reference to "The Matrix"
in chapter eight. "The Matrix" in this instance is a name of a
night-club (from what I can gather) where general drug-fuelled
debauchery takes place. Now, considering the references to pill
popping (red pill, blue pill) in "The Matrix" the movie and the
surrealism that ensues the pill scene I'm left wondering if the
title of the movie is a coded reference to the '60s LSD movement.
Or am I reading too much into this? None-the-less, I would be
interested to hear if "The Matrix" really was a night club in San
Fransisco at that time.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the terminology is completely different in Europe than it is in the USA and other parts of the world.
Mmmm... Brownies...
As you correctly said, SCO is accusing IBM of violation of contract. This is not a crime. it's purely a civil matter.
Damned right they should have. Although I see from the other replies to your post that the word "union" invokes a lot of fear. I may be advisable to use the word "guild" which seems not to upset people so.
To the freepers in the house: Why is it that the traditional professions (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc) can be (indeed, have to be) unionised but the computer industry cannot? Would you want just anyone performing a heart transplant or building a bridge? No, of course not, so why let just anyone install your computer systems or write your software? That's what a guild (a union by any other name) ensures against; only those who are certified can get the job. I'm genuinely astonished that the computer industry is still completely unregulated in this regard.
That's a fair view point I suppose (just a wild guess, you're a middle aged Caucasian male, yes?). I just hope you realise that if you don't stand up for the people who are being persecuted right now, then there won't be many people left to stand up for you when your time comes
And how do you propose the systems be changed? I can assure you, overwhelming them with apathy won't work.
True. Moreover, how would you ever know that the source you're looking at relates to the binary that you've just bought. From what I can gather, the Shared Source thing doesn't allow you to make your own binaries.
He never said it was Open Source, but that the suggested business model is one advocated by the Open Source people. The same business model that MS advocates say can't work.
GNU is a free software project, not an open source project. The policy of the Free Software Foundation has *always* been to question proprietary software. In fact, it was founded as an antidote to what Stallman saw as the creeping death of proprietary software in the early 80s.
Your concerns are valid of course, but they were addressed in the late 90s when the Open Source movement was established.
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
Yes. My comprehension of the parent poster's comment was flawed. I thought he was saying that the ninth ammendment didn't enumerate those "certain rights". A little more thought on my part would have revealed that he couldn't possibly have meant that.
It's got nothing to do with the will of the content owners, it's inherent in copyright law (DMCA excepted). When you legally acquire a copy of a copyrighted work you are allowed to do certain things with it; actions which fall into two categories, Use and Fair-Use. "Use" would be listening to a CD or watching a DVD for example. "Fair-use" seems to differ from country to country but might include such things as watching a DVD with a couple of your pals or (in the USA at least) making a backup copy for personal use. The Use and Fair-Use rights you are granted are in effect, a "licence" to do certain things with a copyrighted work.
In a nutshell, the DMCA is an attempt to trump "Use" and "Fair-Use" rights.
What are the previous 8 ammendment's (and those added since) if they're not enumerations of rights retained by the people? I'm not an American so perhaps I'm missing something.
I appreciate your pedantry. However, as I was clearly discussing the legality of copying CDs, "can" obviously refers to whether one "can legally" copy a CD.
Moreover, a quick look in my Oxford dictionary reveals that "can" has a secondary meaning, "have the right to" and a colloquial meaning, "be permitted to". Webster's offers a similar definition; "Although there is a formal distinction made between can to express the ability to do something and may to express permission, in informal usage can is generally acceptable to express permission, esp. in questions or negative statements".
You can't copy CDs for personal use in Britain as it's not one of activities listed in the fair use laws -- an activity has to be explicitely exempted for it to be free from the restrictions imposed by the copyright laws. See The UK Campaign For Digital Rights for more info, particularly the FAQ
It was hardly research. It was an performance set up by the art
department. The BBC article you cited says as much; "The project,
by students from the university's MediaLab Arts course, received
£2,000 from the Arts Council."
As I say, this wasn't a scientific experiment and isn't meant to
be taken this seriously.
This is almost too dumb for words.
According to your reasoning, copyright infringement is in fact a criminal offence because it's theft of property. I'm glad the judiciary hasn't realised this yet. All these years people have been fussing with civil lawsuits when all along it was criminal offence. Crikey, the DMCA seems almost superfluous using your logic.
If you can show me one instance where somebody was successfully prosecuted for theft because they infringed on someone's copyright then I'll gladly emigrate.
I used to think that too...
It's not stealing; if anything, it's copyright infringement. Stealing refers to the theft of physical property and it's downright misleading to describe infringement of copyright as theft.
I don't know to be honest, but the entire executive and legislative branch of the British and American governments are just as retarded as me it seems. I mean, why have copyright laws at all if the theft laws legislate all of this?
Did you read the link no_choice provided? The GNU/Linux meme has nothing to do with which apps are used. The GNU prefix is intended to convey the philosophical ideas behind the free software movement.
How can "snickers" and "sars" be totally unrelated when they both start and end with the letter s. There just has to be a connection...
You forgot the law that states a Hackney Carriage must have a bail of hay available for the horse.
I have no doubt that Perl or Python are more powerful than sed and awk but the truth is I've never had a need to learn either as sed and awk always seemed adequate for my modest needs. So to answer your question, I do.
"B-Movie" is worth a listen too...
Figures
Great stuff. Thanks for the tip.
TBH I was never a big fan of The Matrix so I ignored Reloaded, but I shall acquire a copy based on your recommendation.
I'm currently reading "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" by Hunter S. Thompson and was struck by a passing reference to "The Matrix" in chapter eight. "The Matrix" in this instance is a name of a night-club (from what I can gather) where general drug-fuelled debauchery takes place. Now, considering the references to pill popping (red pill, blue pill) in "The Matrix" the movie and the surrealism that ensues the pill scene I'm left wondering if the title of the movie is a coded reference to the '60s LSD movement. Or am I reading too much into this? None-the-less, I would be interested to hear if "The Matrix" really was a night club in San Fransisco at that time.