True, current copyright laws only require you to put your idea down on paper or on a computer for it to be considered copyrighted, but this was not the case always, was it?
First, I think that people who are against "globalization" (probably the most ambiguous term in the history of the world) might want to spend more time trying to explain what they are for, louder than what they are against, because it would seem that the anti-free-trade people and the anti-globalization people get thrown together a lot, since they have common enemies, and as a result, lots of us are baffled, wondering what sort of stone age this lot prefer to live in.
Having said that, I would suggest to people worried that what passes for "culture" today (I totally agree that pop culture of today is bland and unappetizing) not worry so much, because one of the laws of the free market (in my own words) is that "stuff that sucks enough will eventually be replaced by stuff that doesn't such quite as much."
Yes, I agree, when you generalize people and lump them into large groups like that, the behaviors of that group as a whole does not make much sense. Much as generalizing in that way doesn't really make much sense, either (so why do it?).
Palm Pilots were not, to my knowledge, sold as a loss leader to the corporation that manufactures them. As long as you bought a unit, Palm (US Robotics, 3Com, pick your owner) made money, pretty much regardless of what you did with them.
According to the business model that all console makers seem to use these days, Microsoft only makes money on X-Box when someone also buys X-Box games to play on the console. If you only buy a console and no games, they actually lose money. It is a matter of speculation for us how many games you have to buy for them to break even. Assuming that all this is true, Microsoft would have absolutely no business incentive to encourage/allow hacking of the console for uses besides the playing of X-Box games.
There really are fully grown, even heterosexual males out there who really did enjoy the movie Titanic, but feel that their spirituality suffers when they look at Kate Winslet's breasts. They may even wish to have a copy of the tape, but not want the images of Kate's assets so easily accessible, because they simply don't want to see that 1 minute portion of the movie. Although their market share is inconsequental, the legitimacy of their problem still exists, which legitimizes the services that this business is providing.
You have a very valid point, and the fact that our language changes over time is even reflected in the widely accepted references (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, etc). The 2002 version certainly contains words that were not in the 1970 version, since the use of those added words has become more accepted.
While human communication syntax is not as rigid and unforgiving as a computer system's communications requirements might be, we will still suffer without some standards. Nothing is more frustrating than when someone misunderstands what you mean, but thinks they know what you meant. New words or "widely" understood phrases or symbols in some places might not be so widely understood in another place.
What it really comes down to is the fact that some people apparently need learn that different forms of speech are like different tools, and they should use the tool best suited for the job at hand.
The purpose of school is supposed to be learning, and this lesson is a valuable one for those who won't automatically understand it. If their language skills are such that they have only mastered one mode of communication, then they cannot really expect to do that well in any class that requires written reports.
Even terms that cannot be expressed verbally are making their way into papers. Melanie Weaver was stunned by some of the term papers she received from a 10th-grade class she recently taught as part of an internship. "They would be trying to make a point in a paper, they would put a smiley face in the end," said Ms. Weaver, who teaches at Alvernia College in Reading, Pa. "If they were presenting an argument and they needed to present an opposite view, they would put a frown."
Perhaps the poster has read the DMCA very carefully, but decided to be safe by deferring to the court's interperetation of the law, since the court is the one who will determine if he/she goes to jail or not. The CSS scheme used to "encrypt" movies on DVD is about as strong a "technological measure" as this glue, yet the DMCA still seems to apply, according to the courts, and that is the whole point. DeCSS, which was written in order to allow people to do many things besides pirate movies was not primarily designed for circumvention, yet the DMCA still seems to apply, according to the courts, and that is the whole point.
Based on my experience with assemble-it-yourself furniture, and the quality of the instructions associated with them, I would really, really hate to see any higher technology UI from these same people.
To us, the promise of digital technology is freedom to move & manipulate data, including any sound or sight that can be captured digitally.
To a media company, the promise of digital media means
1. opportunities to develop more avenues of revenue and
2. Opportunities that some individuals will exploit to prevent them from earning the revenues that copyright law should allow them to earn.
It seems we are both correct about these conflicting perspectives, but the thing about it that needs to be examined is: What is the whole reason for IP laws in the first place? It is to promote the development of science & art, or something like that, no? And it is getting pretty darn close to the point where they are actually using these laws to retard the growth of some areas of science and art. So whose side should lose? It seems pretty obvious to me, but I don't have Billions of dollars to buy politicians.
My take on Daniel's post was not that he was suggesting that bombs are supposed to be surgical weapons, in fact, he was headed back in the right direction, by suggesting that being blinded by a weapon which has replaced a bomb that would have likely taken your head/arms/legs off and killed you isn't too bad, in the scheme of things. Daniel just rather understated this point a bit.
The most nebulous factor at this point seems to be how far from the target these reflections might remain dangerous. Laser weapon light, though still powerful, dangerous, and fast (speed of light)once it has been reflected by something, would likely lose its power quickly as it moved away from the target, because unless the target is a smooth mirror, this target canot possibly reflect the laser light purely enough to let it hold its tight beam (which is what allows a laser light to deliver damaging power to a remote target). And there are so many factors that would come into play here, including the initial power of the laser, the distance between the laser and the actual target that this laser is reflecting off, the color and other energy-reflecting or absorbing properties of this reflecting target, the shape and surface of this target, be it curved, straight, smooth, bumpy, furry, etc, the quality of the air between the laser and the reflecting target, the amount of dirt/dust/smoke in the air immediately around the target, etc.
My guess is that this laser, if used as intended, will reduce total collateral damage, instead of increasing it, even taking into consideration the fact that some people may end up with sight damage/loss.
Instead of using analogies that you don't really know anything about, why don't you try just explaining yourself rationally?
Thanks to thinking like yours, there has been a 75-percent fall-off in logging over the past 18 or so years. You might think this is good, but this has helped boost the density of America's forests to about 700 trees-per-acre, versus about 70 in 1900. In fact the last president ignored the General Accounting Office's August 1999 prediction that "it is only a matter of time before catastrophic wildfires become widespread."
Clear-cutting is not a good practice, but just like how clear-cutting definitely not the forest's greatest problem right now, Joe Blow's biggest problem in life isn't whether or not the company he works for might be acting like a corporation or not. In fact, like MSFT employees more after your comment, just because I won't subscribe to the sheep mentality that seems to prevade the OS community that technological choices are paramount to religious choices. But I guess it's just not ok to hate someone because they are (insert least favorite religion here), so the human mind needs to replace that natural bigotry with something else. Let's get them damn "corporatites" and run them out of town!
It just floors me how many "enlightened" people don't realize how they are just like the billions of human beings who came before them, with just as many warts & prejudices, only they just hate different groups of people, so they think it's alright to hate & pre-judge individual people just because of their ill-conceived idea of how the universe operates.
Try studying history thoroghly for a while. You may end up hating the same people, but at least then you won't be under the odd impression that it's because you are inherently good, and they are all inherently bad
And no, I have nothing to do with forestry at all, I just recognized negative propaganda when I saw it, and took about 10 seconds to find some numbers to show that what you were saying is fluff
If I am not mistaken, the doctrine of fair use, as upheld by courts, actually does include sharing copies of copyrighted works with people. There is grey area here as to how closely associated you have to be with these people before it becomes illegal, and these rulings were before sharing over the internet was practical, but the concept is actually included in the doctrine of fair use, just so you know.
You can already use Visual Studio.Net to write "managed" code (code managed by the.Net Common Language Runtime), so it's not like people are going to have to wait until right before this version of Windows is released to write code that will run on it. Will all applictions written between now and then be written in managed code? No, but there are always compatability issues with some software every time a new version OS comes out anyway.
I found it. The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power...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..."
Forgive me if I don't get it exactly right, but I believe that it is the constitution that brings the idea of "intellectual property" into existence, at least in the USA, and gives congress power to administer laws to efect it.
I think that there is a difference between software being invented/produced inside a government agency, and a bureaucracy actually mandating what can or cannot be produced by others. I don't know for a fact, but I doubt that Mosaic was produced by a committee./P
You may not be able to totally get rid of the sa account, but you certainly can turn off SQL authentication, and go with Windows only authentication. If you do that, and then try to connect to the SQL Server, using the sa account (even with the correct password), you will receive something like: Server Msg 18452, Level 16, State 1 [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Login failed for user 'sa'.Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection.
You do have a good point, but I suspect that a virtual representation of clay tablets is going to be closer to the real thing than a "virtual representation" of the grand canyon, at least for most intents & porposes (wouldn't you agree?)
Just because it may become illegal to sell the game to a minor doesn't mean that a minor won't be able to get the game. The law won't make it illegal for the minor to have the game in his/her possesion, will it (unlike alcohol)? If this is the case, then it may not be illegal to buy the game & give it to a minor, whether they are your child or not (how can it be contributing if it's not illegal for them to have it?).
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure?
True, current copyright laws only require you to put your idea down on paper or on a computer for it to be considered copyrighted, but this was not the case always, was it?
Warning! Quantum mechanics dictate that what you are observing may not be the actual contents of this post.
I thought quantum mechanics dictate that what I am observing may not be the actual state of the contents until I looked at the contents.
Good Points, thanks for the education.
First, I think that people who are against "globalization" (probably the most ambiguous term in the history of the world) might want to spend more time trying to explain what they are for, louder than what they are against, because it would seem that the anti-free-trade people and the anti-globalization people get thrown together a lot, since they have common enemies, and as a result, lots of us are baffled, wondering what sort of stone age this lot prefer to live in.
Having said that, I would suggest to people worried that what passes for "culture" today (I totally agree that pop culture of today is bland and unappetizing) not worry so much, because one of the laws of the free market (in my own words) is that "stuff that sucks enough will eventually be replaced by stuff that doesn't such quite as much."
Yes, I agree, when you generalize people and lump them into large groups like that, the behaviors of that group as a whole does not make much sense. Much as generalizing in that way doesn't really make much sense, either (so why do it?).
Palm Pilots were not, to my knowledge, sold as a loss leader to the corporation that manufactures them. As long as you bought a unit, Palm (US Robotics, 3Com, pick your owner) made money, pretty much regardless of what you did with them.
According to the business model that all console makers seem to use these days, Microsoft only makes money on X-Box when someone also buys X-Box games to play on the console. If you only buy a console and no games, they actually lose money. It is a matter of speculation for us how many games you have to buy for them to break even. Assuming that all this is true, Microsoft would have absolutely no business incentive to encourage/allow hacking of the console for uses besides the playing of X-Box games.
There really are fully grown, even heterosexual males out there who really did enjoy the movie Titanic, but feel that their spirituality suffers when they look at Kate Winslet's breasts. They may even wish to have a copy of the tape, but not want the images of Kate's assets so easily accessible, because they simply don't want to see that 1 minute portion of the movie. Although their market share is inconsequental, the legitimacy of their problem still exists, which legitimizes the services that this business is providing.
You have a very valid point, and the fact that our language changes over time is even reflected in the widely accepted references (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, etc). The 2002 version certainly contains words that were not in the 1970 version, since the use of those added words has become more accepted.
While human communication syntax is not as rigid and unforgiving as a computer system's communications requirements might be, we will still suffer without some standards. Nothing is more frustrating than when someone misunderstands what you mean, but thinks they know what you meant. New words or "widely" understood phrases or symbols in some places might not be so widely understood in another place.
What it really comes down to is the fact that some people apparently need learn that different forms of speech are like different tools, and they should use the tool best suited for the job at hand.
The purpose of school is supposed to be learning, and this lesson is a valuable one for those who won't automatically understand it. If their language skills are such that they have only mastered one mode of communication, then they cannot really expect to do that well in any class that requires written reports.
Here is my favorite part:
Even terms that cannot be expressed verbally are making their way into papers. Melanie Weaver was stunned by some of the term papers she received from a 10th-grade class she recently taught as part of an internship. "They would be trying to make a point in a paper, they would put a smiley face in the end," said Ms. Weaver, who teaches at Alvernia College in Reading, Pa. "If they were presenting an argument and they needed to present an opposite view, they would put a frown."
Perhaps the poster has read the DMCA very carefully, but decided to be safe by deferring to the court's interperetation of the law, since the court is the one who will determine if he/she goes to jail or not.
The CSS scheme used to "encrypt" movies on DVD is about as strong a "technological measure" as this glue, yet the DMCA still seems to apply, according to the courts, and that is the whole point.
DeCSS, which was written in order to allow people to do many things besides pirate movies was not primarily designed for circumvention, yet the DMCA still seems to apply, according to the courts, and that is the whole point.
OK. Sounds great!
Going with the ratio that Judge what's-his-name who declared Microsoft a monopoly used, how long is 10 years in computer years?
Based on my experience with assemble-it-yourself furniture, and the quality of the instructions associated with them, I would really, really hate to see any higher technology UI from these same people.
The promise of digital technology.
Interesting topic.
To us, the promise of digital technology is freedom to move & manipulate data, including any sound or sight that can be captured digitally.
To a media company, the promise of digital media means
1. opportunities to develop more avenues of revenue and
2. Opportunities that some individuals will exploit to prevent them from earning the revenues that copyright law should allow them to earn.
It seems we are both correct about these conflicting perspectives, but the thing about it that needs to be examined is: What is the whole reason for IP laws in the first place? It is to promote the development of science & art, or something like that, no? And it is getting pretty darn close to the point where they are actually using these laws to retard the growth of some areas of science and art. So whose side should lose? It seems pretty obvious to me, but I don't have Billions of dollars to buy politicians.
My take on Daniel's post was not that he was suggesting that bombs are supposed to be surgical weapons, in fact, he was headed back in the right direction, by suggesting that being blinded by a weapon which has replaced a bomb that would have likely taken your head/arms/legs off and killed you isn't too bad, in the scheme of things. Daniel just rather understated this point a bit.
The most nebulous factor at this point seems to be how far from the target these reflections might remain dangerous. Laser weapon light, though still powerful, dangerous, and fast (speed of light)once it has been reflected by something, would likely lose its power quickly as it moved away from the target, because unless the target is a smooth mirror, this target canot possibly reflect the laser light purely enough to let it hold its tight beam (which is what allows a laser light to deliver damaging power to a remote target). And there are so many factors that would come into play here, including the initial power of the laser, the distance between the laser and the actual target that this laser is reflecting off, the color and other energy-reflecting or absorbing properties of this reflecting target, the shape and surface of this target, be it curved, straight, smooth, bumpy, furry, etc, the quality of the air between the laser and the reflecting target, the amount of dirt/dust/smoke in the air immediately around the target, etc.
My guess is that this laser, if used as intended, will reduce total collateral damage, instead of increasing it, even taking into consideration the fact that some people may end up with sight damage/loss.
Instead of using analogies that you don't really know anything about, why don't you try just explaining yourself rationally?
Thanks to thinking like yours, there has been a 75-percent fall-off in logging over the past 18 or so years. You might think this is good, but this has helped boost the density of America's forests to about 700 trees-per-acre, versus about 70 in 1900. In fact the last president ignored the General Accounting Office's August 1999 prediction that "it is only a matter of time before catastrophic wildfires become widespread."
Clear-cutting is not a good practice, but just like how clear-cutting definitely not the forest's greatest problem right now, Joe Blow's biggest problem in life isn't whether or not the company he works for might be acting like a corporation or not. In fact, like MSFT employees more after your comment, just because I won't subscribe to the sheep mentality that seems to prevade the OS community that technological choices are paramount to religious choices. But I guess it's just not ok to hate someone because they are (insert least favorite religion here), so the human mind needs to replace that natural bigotry with something else. Let's get them damn "corporatites" and run them out of town!
It just floors me how many "enlightened" people don't realize how they are just like the billions of human beings who came before them, with just as many warts & prejudices, only they just hate different groups of people, so they think it's alright to hate & pre-judge individual people just because of their ill-conceived idea of how the universe operates.
Try studying history thoroghly for a while. You may end up hating the same people, but at least then you won't be under the odd impression that it's because you are inherently good, and they are all inherently bad
And no, I have nothing to do with forestry at all, I just recognized negative propaganda when I saw it, and took about 10 seconds to find some numbers to show that what you were saying is fluff
If I am not mistaken, the doctrine of fair use, as upheld by courts, actually does include sharing copies of copyrighted works with people.
There is grey area here as to how closely associated you have to be with these people before it becomes illegal, and these rulings were before sharing over the internet was practical, but the concept is actually included in the doctrine of fair use, just so you know.
You can already use Visual Studio .Net to write "managed" code (code managed by the .Net Common Language Runtime), so it's not like people are going to have to wait until right before this version of Windows is released to write code that will run on it. Will all applictions written between now and then be written in managed code? No, but there are always compatability issues with some software every time a new version OS comes out anyway.
I found it. The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power...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..."
Forgive me if I don't get it exactly right, but I believe that it is the constitution that brings the idea of "intellectual property" into existence, at least in the USA, and gives congress power to administer laws to efect it.
I think that there is a difference between software being invented/produced inside a government agency, and a bureaucracy actually mandating what can or cannot be produced by others. I don't know for a fact, but I doubt that Mosaic was produced by a committee. /P
I gave MS money to print me a sheet of paper. It didn't even have the laser hologram on it!
I hope you never discover what you are paying the insurance company for, or you are going to be pretty upset.
You may not be able to totally get rid of the sa account, but you certainly can turn off SQL authentication, and go with Windows only authentication. If you do that, and then try to connect to the SQL Server, using the sa account (even with the correct password), you will receive something like:
Server Msg 18452, Level 16, State 1
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Login failed for user 'sa'.Reason: Not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection.
You do have a good point, but I suspect that a virtual representation of clay tablets is going to be closer to the real thing than a "virtual representation" of the grand canyon, at least for most intents & porposes (wouldn't you agree?)
Judging by his post, I take it that he realizes that some things are more important than money, regardless of how big the stack is.
Just because it may become illegal to sell the game to a minor doesn't mean that a minor won't be able to get the game. The law won't make it illegal for the minor to have the game in his/her possesion, will it (unlike alcohol)? If this is the case, then it may not be illegal to buy the game & give it to a minor, whether they are your child or not (how can it be contributing if it's not illegal for them to have it?).