... reporter Mike Jones at ACME Construction headquarters where they have just filed an injunction against the National Association of Realtors, ordering them to sell only new homes. John Tightwad, company spokesman had this to say, "The secondary market is a destructive, criminally un-American, invention of the realtors with the sole purpose of eliminating hardworking construction jobs! Every time someone in America buys a used home, they're stealing someone's livelihood!"
Daylight Savings Time is meant to give us extra daylight time in the evening.
I don't really care about having to go to work in the dark, I'm going to work. What I care about is having enough sunlight at the end of the day to go out with friends and family to bring a little bit of joy to my day.
It's true that we're going to get shorter daylight hours in the winter, you simply can't avoid that. However by putting the clocks ahead two hours next fall and leaving them there, the sun won't start setting until much later allowing the majority of people the opportunity to enjoy their evenings outdoors.
When you get to work tomorrow, look at the clock and ask yourself would you rather it say 6AM instead of 9AM? Not to say I'm not in favor of changing the standard business hours to something earlier (so we can get off work earlier), but please don't screw with my clock!
Working 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM is pretty standard in the business world, although I've been working on my boss for 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM.;-) Personally, I'm not a morning person so I wouldn't be too fond of waking up at 4:00 AM to get to work for 6:00 AM.
Still, when you think of it, if you're going to get up at 4:00 AM to get to work at 6:00 AM it's going to be dark outside, regardless of the time of year. If we put the clocks ahead two hours next fall and leave them there, you're still going to be going to work in the dark, as we do now without the change, *but* you'll be leaving when it's daylight and you won't have to get up at the awful 4:00 AM for it.
Copyright *does* stop you from making exact copies of an idea. It also stops you from making derivative works or, works inspired by the original concept.
Unlike patents which expire after 20 years, copyright lasts close to 100 years. If the work in question isn't a work for hire and the copyright rests with the original author it becomes the longer life of the author plus 70 years.
With copyright protections being so skewed towards the copyright holder, an idea inspired by something we watched, read, or listened to as children simply cannot legally be created. Granted the work is supposed to enter the public domain, allowing us to draw upon it. Unfortunately the long term lengths of copyright mean that we will both be dead, or close to it, before anything created in our childhood passes into the public domain. Our potential innovation is lost and never be legally shared with the world.
I *do* agree with you in regards to software patents. The life cycle of a particular piece of software is measured in years, not decades, software patents should be 5 - 8 years at the most.
That being said, copyright and patents both deal with the dissemination of ideas and concepts. For most inventions / ideas the idea of a 20 year expiry shouldn't be considered excessive by anyone. Giving both of these concepts a similar 20 year term limit should be sufficiently long enough for the original creator to profit from their work, but still short enough that the original creator is encouraged to continue creating new ideas they can have another 20 years of potential profits with.
It is also possible, even with expiry, to make money with an idea / invention. It just means the creator isn't the only one able to profit from that particular work anymore and they now need to innovate to compete with the enhancements their work has inspired. Competition is often good as it can inspire new ideas, which can be beneficial to everyone.
without daylight savings time the sun would set by 5pm in October, instead of the November it does now.
Which is why I've always disliked Daylight Savings Time. It bothers me that through the winter months I leave home when it's dark and get home when it's dark. I work inside all day, I almost never see the sun.
Honestly, I've never been able to figure out why they don't just put the clock *ahead* two hours in the fall, and then just leave it there.
Look outside your window tonight, see when the sun goes down, look at the time and then add three hours. Ask yourself if you wish it was 8:00 PM rather than 5:00 PM or, as we get further into the winter months, 7:00 and 4:00 PM. Not only that, summer vacations would be nicer too as we could stay out at the beach longer or enjoy other outdoor activities longer.
It might also have a nice side effect combating the obesity epidemic we're all facing if we gave people more daylight time to play outside.
If the FTC really wanted to fix the mess surrounding copyright it'd give copyright the same term length as patents, 20 years.
The explosion of innovation coming from that simple act would likely generate so much economic activity, it could offset the losses from the current credit crisis.
Although Dalek Caan (Khan?) went insane by going into the Time Locked timestream. Since he broke the lock would that make everyone else okay to enter, or would they also go insane. Either way, it *would* make for some good story telling.
Heck, I'd love to see Old Cybermen go up against New Cybermen. Or the Doctor to run into some of his other companions.
maybe it is time for a female Doctor? I like the potential...
Particularly if they bring back Jenny somehow. "You're my dad, but now you're my mum?"
Me, I'm still hoping that they figure out a way for the Doctor to break to the time locks on the Time War so that they can do another Five Doctors episode with the remaining Doctor's still living.
Just don't try it with a mac mini - two putty knives and 4 hours later you'll be wishing you either paid the premium or didn't get a mac mini.
This really depends on whether or not you watched any of the online videos detailing how to open the Mini. I was able to open my G4 Mac Mini in less than ten minutes with a butter knife and an old metal spatula with no slots in it. Once the case was open I only had to pop a few screws to lift the DVD / hard drive enclosure, and the RAM was easily exposed. At this point it only took me about five minutes to swap the chip out.
It would have gone faster had the back memory clip not gotten caught on the metal snaps to the rear of the Mini, preventing me from opening it all the way. It took a bit of chip wiggling, while lifting / inserting it on an angle, in order to swap it. Overall though, it wasn't that hard.
All told, it took me less than 30 minutes to swap out the RAM and get the Mac back up and running again.
I will give you props on the hard-drive swap though. That looks a touch more complicated since you need to remove delicate wires from the main-board so you can take the hard drive enclosure completely out of the case. Despite this I plan on swapping out the hard-drive for a faster, larger, one just before "Snow Leopard" comes out. It is likely that when "Snow Leopard" finally comes out, copies of Leopard will be hard, if not impossible, to find. Since I doubt it will run on the G4 chip in my Mini, Leopard will be my last chance to upgrade the operating system in this machine.
But yet, almost the entirety of Ontario voted Tory.
That's because after watching the all leaders debate it was obvious that the opposition simply didn't provide any leaders of note.
Stéphane Dion was barely comprehensible and it actually hurt to hear him attempt to speak English. The "Green Shift" plan he was trying to endorse was complicated and definitely required someone who would have been able to communicate, and defend, it clearly. The fact that he was incomprehensible to the majority of the populace, who don't speak french, really hurt him and the chances of his party. It never ceases to amaze me that the Liberals keep picking incomprehensible leaders from Québec, then lament why they can't seem to win elections. I would have accepted Bob Rae over Dion and, being old enough to remember what it was like to live in Bob's NDP Ontario, that's saying something.
Jack Layton didn't have a hope in Ontario because he still has to overcome peoples memories of Bob Rae's Ontario. Yes, I understand Rae had a tough time, what with the recession and all, it still doesn't change the fact that a lot of people were simply unhappy with Rae and, by extension, the NDP. I also think Layton had a hard time because, when he looked directly into the camera, he had a fake appearing smile that simply made you feel he couldn't be trusted. Throw in the fact that the NDP, as a whole, simply have a tough time because people see them as being far too socialist for their own good, they are often considered to have uncomfortably close ties to the Canadians Against Work and other Unions, and they never seem willing to admit that their social agenda would require them to raise taxes considerably, makes them a difficult choice for most people.
Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc Québecois leader, simply wasn't able to be the PM. He even admitted as much in the debate, since his party only runs candidates in Québec. Honestly, I don't even know why he was allowed to be part of the debate. You should be required to have candidates running in over 95% of all ridings to be included in the national leaders debate. It's a shame really, some of what he said was actually interesting, even if it was Québec centric; he might even have picked up a few seats *outside* of Québec.
Elizabeth May, the Green Party leader, seemed to be the most well spoken and appeared to be intelligent enough by being able to call up facts and figures to bolster her arguments without too much difficulty. Definitely a smart woman there, but her party is seen as the "Environmental Issues Only" party. While they have a number of planks to their platform, they have had a hard time conveying them to the electorate. Until they do, they simply won't be considered a viable choice to the voting public.
That left Stephen Harper who, in the minds of the people, would be better than the other four choices. Yet anyone I talked to, outside of dyed in the wool (small "c") conservatives, they were absolutely scared witless that Harper would get his majority. He is very brusque, combative, uncooperative, unsympathetic, and appears to have a hidden ultra conservative agenda that he would push with impunity if given half a chance.
As it is the next couple of years aren't going to be fun in Canada as we watch the opposition fein that they're going to vote down some piece of unwanted legislation, triggering a snap election, only to have half of them not show up for work the next day so that the government won't fall until the opposition's poll numbers look good.
Yeah because Dion and his hacks decided to clam up and not vote on any bills because Harper turned every one into a confidence vote.
Exactly. Now we all get to watch as Harper does it again. Dion kept trying to paint himself as the only leader who could handle things yet, as the official opposition, he repeatedly demonstrated that he didn't have the force of will to vote against the government and trigger a snap election.
Harper's been acting as a defacto majority for the entire time he's been in office. He tags the "confidence vote" rider on every single piece of legislation he puts forward knowing full well that the opposition won't, despite people vehemently screaming that they didn't want what Harper was pushing, have the guts to take him to task for it.
Because of our first past the post election system, where only 37.64% of the populace gave the Conservatives 143 seats, 12 away from a majority, politicians are more worried about looking good to the electorate so that they'll get a majority next time. Harper knows this giving him, and his Conservative allies, the opportunity to do pretty much whatever he wants.
Harper and his Conservative party have no desire to actually work with the representatives of the other 62.36% of populace, like we expect them to, so we end up with laws the majority don't want, pedantic name calling and, taxpayer funded gamesmanship.
And will someone please tell me why Harper isn't in jail yet for violating his own fixed election dates law? This election wasn't caused by the opposition voting down a piece of legislation, they'd already shown they don't have the courage, it was initiated by Harper and his party directly. So I'm wondering, why aren't they in jail yet? Oh wait, I forget, laws don't apply to politicians only to those they "represent".
It's a wall plugable USB power source. Not only does it charge my iPod at work, but I use it with my Play 'n Charge kit for the X-Box 360. The 360 is more than 8 feet away, put the wall plug next to my chair isn't. I don't see a reason that a company couldn't just make a bigger one with 4 ports in it, allowing you to charge most of your USB devices without the need for a rat's nest of bulky adapters.
I think most people would agree with you. The problem is that copyrights are now so interminably long that any child born today will live, grow old, and die before they are able to build upon the culture they were exposed to during their lifetime.
And even under the old system which gave copyright for 35 years, which most/.ers agree with that system, this work would still be covered under those conditions.
The original copyright term length was 14 years, with the option to renew for another 14 if the original author was still alive. In total, 28 years. When you consider the fluid nature of ideas along with the wired world we're now living in, copyrights intended goal of promoting the useful sciences and arts mean that even 28 years is now too long. Something more like 10 + 10, or 15 and 10 would make much more sense.
A vibrant, healthy, prosperous, culture is based in large part on it's ability to make use of the ideas, concepts, and ingenuity of others. An idea once shared becomes part of the culture of those who experience it. By artificially locking those ideas and concepts away from further expansion, stifling inspiration of new ideas for over 100 years, the copyright holders are essentially negating the innovation and progress that short term copyright was meant to foster; in effect this results in the wholesale theft of our culture.
Now while it's true that "Watchmen" was created in 1986, 22 years ago, and assuming the original copyright rules were still in play, then by all rights this "intellectual property" would be entering the public domain in 6 years. If we did it more sanely, it would have either entered the public domain 2 years ago, or 3 years from now.
Instead, assuming the media cartels don't bribe / lobby the government for another copyright term extension, "Watchmen" won't exit public domain until at *least* 2081 / 2106, or if it somehow reverts to Alan Moore and he lives to age 80, 2136. The idea that locking up the potential for innovation and the fostering of new concepts / ideas for this long somehow benefits society, its utterly ridiculous. Under these rules not one single person alive on Slashdot today, who might have been inspired by "Watchmen", will be able to make use of that inspiration... *EVER*.
This is what most people mean when they talk about the tragedy of copyright law, not the common misconception that we believe it is somehow wrong people are getting paid for their work. For example: I have ideas, heavily inspired by the culture I was exposed to in the 1970s-80s. I am inspired, I want to create and ultimately be paid for my work. But because of the utterly unrealistic term lengths of copyright, my ingenuity and creativity has been stifled and my ideas will never be realized nor will my ideas ever inspire others as I was inspired.
Right about now, after pointing out that I have ideas I want to realize and be paid for, is where someone usually pipes in and talks about how we need to "properly compensate artists / authors for their work", and that by trying to draw upon the culture that these "artists and authors" have created, that I'm some kind of commie pirate.
I counter by asking: Why do authors, artists, and other holders of copyright believe they are somehow special and deserving of continued payment on works created multiple decades ago? Any other person would be laughed out of a job if they told their employer they wanted a royalty check every time someone used a concept, idea, or in any other way used the product of their labor. Consider this:
* No matter how long you keep your car, when you take it out for a spin, you will never send a royalty check to the factory worker who assembled it. * A judge, who's precedent is cited in a court case, will never receive a royalty check when someone cites their interpretation of the law. * When you put food in your fridge, you will neve
Those are definitely factors, but the reason I see TV advertising as one of the major problems is that it gives money a huge say in determining the outcome of elections.
Which is why, by law, all political advertising in an election year should be free.
The EM spectrum is a public resource owned by all and is leased to media companies. To keep up with the societal changes brought about with our transition to a mass media culture, those leases should be rewritten to allow the government to make use of this public resource, during an election year, with no cost. This would make running for office much cheaper, if not free.
Couple this with disallowing donations from lobby groups and corporations, since it is the costs of running a campaign that precipitate the need for such donations, and perhaps we might start getting a government for the people again.
Keys in cars are a market-driven thing, demanded by the consumer. They are not there to protect the car-makers.
True, they are there to protect the owners. Generally if you have the key you are *usually* the owner of the vehicle or someone authorized by the owner. Just like if you have the CD you are *usually* the copyright holder or, in the case of a legitimate purchase of a copy, someone authorized by the copyright holder.
On a more practical note, since the keyhole only accepts one key and is only used for one purpose - you can just leave the key in there all the time if you aren't worried about security.
This is true and I can't argue with that.
Try that with a game CD and you will lose the use of your CD drive for other purposes.
True. Of course, since you would only need the CD in the drive when you want to play that particular game, it wouldn't make much sense to keep it in there all the time.
The _other_ alternative is to release a product without the protection, thus making the paid-for product as good as the pirated product.
I totally agree with you. I absolutely _hate_ DRM. It limits my ability to make backups of my legally purchased software and essentially treats me like a criminal. I have always found it funny how the "pirate" version is nearly almost always better than the purchased product when it comes to annoyances caused by DRM and authentication servers (the assumption that every possible customer has an active internet connection is naive).
Now while it is true that without DRM, people could fake the install key or copy the CD, this is just as true _with_ restrive DRM and authentication servers. I'm not naive, people are still going to infringe the original owner's copyrights. You simply can't stop it because if we can see it, hear it, install it, it can be copied.
Despite these realities and my loathing of DRM, its important to remember that while I own the physical plastic disk, and the right to use the copy of software on said disk for personal uses, I don't actually _own_ the software itself, the copyright holder does. While that copy is mine to do with as I please, copyright law does limit what I am allowed to do with the software in terms of distribution to other people. In light of this, as long as I'm not limited as to when, or how, I can use the software, I think it's reasonable for the copyright holder to ask that the disc be in the drive or, for those wanting the "disk-less" install and/or internet download, having a unique installation key to satisfy my proof of purchase.
Even when I buy a game, I'll frequently use the pirate cracks on it because of the stupid copy protection schemes. Who ever thought that the "put the disc in the drive" scheme was a good idea? Sheesh.
Let's reorder this quote shall we?
Even when I buy a car, I'll frequently hot-wire it because of the stupid key. Who ever thought that the "put the key in the ignition" scheme was a good idea? Sheesh.
Putting the original CD in the drive, just like putting the key in the ignition of your car, *usually* proves that you own it. I'm willing to do this simple, trivial task, because the alternatives, online authentication services, treat people who have already purchased the product like common criminals. "Internet down, don't have internet at all? Well sorry, we can't authenticate you and we can't risk that you're not a pirate out to steal our stuff so, you don't get to play." This recent trend of online activation, and authenticating every single use of a purchased good, with a central authority should be repugnant and insulting to those who are willing to, and have, legitimately purchase a product.
I don't mind buying games that I enjoy. I don't even mind proving ownership of said game by putting the CD in the drive. Just don't teat me like a criminal by loading the disk with DRM that prevents me from making backup copies or telling me, through authentication services, when I can and can't play the game I've paid for. And they wonder why people want to infringe their copyrights?
There are only so many ideas you can explore that are interesting to read. When are we going to run out of material you may use without causing someone to sue you for plagiarism?
I'd say we're there already. Just take a look at the glut of modern films, TV, etc... When was the last time you saw something that you couldn't figure out exactly how it was going to end within a few minutes of starting it?
Because copyrights are so long now and we aren't able to draw upon the recent collected works that came before us, nearly everything recently produced has been reduced to the most basic formula of storytelling possible. They simply *can't* make anything interesting or non-formulaic, because if they do, they *could* be sued over the similarities to some other protected content.
What I find funny about this is that the large corporations lobbying for increased copyright extensions and protections are actually *reducing* their potential to make money. As entertainment becomes more and more formulaic and uninteresting, it reduces the potential audience for it thereby reducing returns.
Just imagine if the original copyright terms of 14 + 14 years were still around. Universal could make a 300 Million gross return Star Wars block buster just as well as Fox could; Fox could make a 300 Million gross return Battlestar feature, just like Universal could. Hell, both companies could work together to make a two part Star Trek feature film in the same summer and make loads of cash.
Yet these potential profits will never see the light of day because both companies, through the MPAA, lobbied to have laws passed to protect their current revenue streams thereby closing off others, and directly limit their ability to make money. Someone with shares in media companies should seriously consider suing them over their efforts to reduce profitability like this.
Other than a fun toy to play with once in a while, I wouldn't really want one of these.
My grandmother might though. For while she is more than capable of standing in the kitchen cooking for an hour or two, she has a heart condition that weakens her from simple walking. Something like this would be great for her as she would finally be able to go out for some fresh air and shopping, without having to stop for a few minutes every other park bench.
It also looks much smaller and lighter than a wheelchair and would probably fit in the backseat of a car, leaving ample space for whatever shopping she did. Even the quick charging feature is nice as she could sit on a mall bench next to Customer Service for the hour it's charging.
While I do agree with you, the kind of person who will probably buy the Winglet *should* go out and get a bike instead, it still doesn't change the fact that for people like my granny it could given them a type of freedom they haven't had in a long while.
Can you imagine the kind of hurt we'd be in for as a society with a technology such as this?
Try to imagine a mega church having one of these things.
Everyone's sitting in the pews, the Reverend is off spouting something or other about a great evil when all of a sudden "This is the Lord your God, the Reverend is my agent on this earth. For he knows, as I do, what is most evil. As my children, you will do whatever he commands in the fight against the darkness."
"True" believers can already be a touch over zealous, imagine how much worse it would be with the "word of god" rolling through their heads!
I can never quite believe that people are actually comfortable using a computer when they are sat on a couch. I had my G4 Mac Mini hooked up to my Toshiba 51HX83 for about six months. It would still be hooked up, despite me having a 21 inch 1600 x 1200 LCD monitor in the computer room and only being able to run the TV at 720P (the writing was too small at 1080i), if it weren't for the fact that the Apple Menu bar starting burning into my screen.
Now I could see your point with a small TV, but with a 50+ inch it's simply amazing. No monkeying around with media servers or wireless networks, everything was in one spot. VLC plays full screen and would correctly display the correct aspect ratios for my stuff. Showing the family a funny YouTube video was much easier than everyone crowding around the computer.
It was also nice to web browse between commercials, or check my e-mail. Not to mention the Hi-Def Apple Movie Trailer site was something to behold.
If you haven't done it yet, I would strongly recommend you hook your PC up to your TV. Especially now with the LCD ones out there, you don't have to worry so much about screen burn like I did. I'm *almost* tempted to buy a new LCD TV just so I can hook up my Mac again, it's just hard to justify a new TV purchase when the one you have works perfectly okay.
as no game that I had took advantage of it. That's because you had to learn how to type in a weird phonetic language so that it would render your words accurately.
And well, once you'd gotten that all figured out, it was simply way too much fun making it say cool stuff. Like back in the eighth grade, we had a whole lab of C=64s and a friend managed to swap the teachers GEOS boot disk with a SAM Sayit disk that, when loaded, would play back this text:
"Fawk Ewe Doodz, I yam en EEELEEET coedawr, U geiz awl sawck."
Speech in games, cool. Pranking your teacher, priceless.
You know, every time I hear about the safe work place arguments I have to think what makes them work in an unsafe environment. Because there is no such thing as being 100% safe. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to remove unnecessary risks in the workplace, making them safer to work in.
But you seem to take the cake with your delivery truck example. The raw diesel and exhaust fumes from passing vehicles are more dangerous then second hand smoke. Yes, you're right. But you're forgetting that we also have environmental safety standards regarding the construction of said vehicles. Standards designed to keep vehicle exhaust from being as dangerous as it otherwise would be. If you've been paying attention, as the technology to do this has gotten better the standards get more stringent; further reducing unnecessary risks.
You also missed the other argument I had made, I've highlighted it in bold:
WCLPeter said: "I'm sure the person who makes deliveries, or provides other needed services to the business, would disagree with you." This would include people like the electrician fixing a lighting fixture, or the plumber who's installing a new drain at the smoke filled bar. Or anyone else you can think of who provides needed services to the business. Their jobs are dangerous enough, there is no need to subject them to unnecessary, concentrated, carcinogenic compounds.
And in the case of restaurants, there has been non smoking in food prep areas for over a decade in all the states now. Yes, and with the door separating the kitchen and the dining area constantly being opened and closed all day, do you honestly think second hand smoke stays in the dining area?
BTW, in case your wondering, benzines which is present in some automobile exhaust is a more dangerous chemical, why don't you outlaw cars at automobile service centers too. True, but if you've ever taken your car in for servicing you'd probably notice that the garage is in a large, high ceilinged, well ventilated space. Again, safety standards mandated to reduce unnecessary risks to the staff. Often, for good measure, I have seldom seen them close the big bay doors. When they do, they always vent the vehicles exhaust outside.
Why don't you outlaw tobacco in the first place. It's all about personal responsibility and freedom of choice.
In a free society, mature, responsible adults should have the right to make their own decisions and choices, good or bad. They are also responsible for the results of their choices. Part of this responsibility is recognizing that when others haven't made the same choices as them, they have no right to subject others to their consequences. The problem we're seeing here though is that people often forget this part when talking about being personally responsible.
So let's recap:
If you want to smoke, that's fine with me. Really. I fully and wholeheartedly support your right to make the choice to smoke. Seriously. You can smoke in your car, your boat, your house, your cabin, out on the sidewalk. You can even smoke outside in the designated areas at government or privately owned buildings. No-one is stopping you from smoking.
Smoking is a personal choice that you made for yourself, a choice you are personally and solely responsible for. Unfortunately the consequences of your choice could result in someone else losing their life through no action of their own. This means you should take personal, and moral, responsibility to ensure that no one else is subjected to the consequences of your choice. Yet sadly, smokers as a whole have shown they are unable, or unwilling, to take personal responsibility in this matter.
We as a society have had no choice but to craft new safety standards that stop smokers from deliberately, and needlessly, poisoning someone's workplace or other public gathering place and risking the lives of others.
Slashdot Mirror
... reporter Mike Jones at ACME Construction headquarters where they have just filed an injunction against the National Association of Realtors, ordering them to sell only new homes. John Tightwad, company spokesman had this to say, "The secondary market is a destructive, criminally un-American, invention of the realtors with the sole purpose of eliminating hardworking construction jobs! Every time someone in America buys a used home, they're stealing someone's livelihood!"
Daylight Savings Time is meant to give us extra daylight time in the evening.
I don't really care about having to go to work in the dark, I'm going to work. What I care about is having enough sunlight at the end of the day to go out with friends and family to bring a little bit of joy to my day.
It's true that we're going to get shorter daylight hours in the winter, you simply can't avoid that. However by putting the clocks ahead two hours next fall and leaving them there, the sun won't start setting until much later allowing the majority of people the opportunity to enjoy their evenings outdoors.
When you get to work tomorrow, look at the clock and ask yourself would you rather it say 6AM instead of 9AM? Not to say I'm not in favor of changing the standard business hours to something earlier (so we can get off work earlier), but please don't screw with my clock!
Working 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM is pretty standard in the business world, although I've been working on my boss for 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM. ;-) Personally, I'm not a morning person so I wouldn't be too fond of waking up at 4:00 AM to get to work for 6:00 AM.
Still, when you think of it, if you're going to get up at 4:00 AM to get to work at 6:00 AM it's going to be dark outside, regardless of the time of year. If we put the clocks ahead two hours next fall and leave them there, you're still going to be going to work in the dark, as we do now without the change, *but* you'll be leaving when it's daylight and you won't have to get up at the awful 4:00 AM for it.
Actually you're only part right.
Copyright *does* stop you from making exact copies of an idea. It also stops you from making derivative works or, works inspired by the original concept.
Unlike patents which expire after 20 years, copyright lasts close to 100 years. If the work in question isn't a work for hire and the copyright rests with the original author it becomes the longer life of the author plus 70 years.
With copyright protections being so skewed towards the copyright holder, an idea inspired by something we watched, read, or listened to as children simply cannot legally be created. Granted the work is supposed to enter the public domain, allowing us to draw upon it. Unfortunately the long term lengths of copyright mean that we will both be dead, or close to it, before anything created in our childhood passes into the public domain. Our potential innovation is lost and never be legally shared with the world.
I *do* agree with you in regards to software patents. The life cycle of a particular piece of software is measured in years, not decades, software patents should be 5 - 8 years at the most.
That being said, copyright and patents both deal with the dissemination of ideas and concepts. For most inventions / ideas the idea of a 20 year expiry shouldn't be considered excessive by anyone. Giving both of these concepts a similar 20 year term limit should be sufficiently long enough for the original creator to profit from their work, but still short enough that the original creator is encouraged to continue creating new ideas they can have another 20 years of potential profits with.
It is also possible, even with expiry, to make money with an idea / invention. It just means the creator isn't the only one able to profit from that particular work anymore and they now need to innovate to compete with the enhancements their work has inspired. Competition is often good as it can inspire new ideas, which can be beneficial to everyone.
without daylight savings time the sun would set by 5pm in October, instead of the November it does now.
Which is why I've always disliked Daylight Savings Time. It bothers me that through the winter months I leave home when it's dark and get home when it's dark. I work inside all day, I almost never see the sun.
Honestly, I've never been able to figure out why they don't just put the clock *ahead* two hours in the fall, and then just leave it there.
Look outside your window tonight, see when the sun goes down, look at the time and then add three hours. Ask yourself if you wish it was 8:00 PM rather than 5:00 PM or, as we get further into the winter months, 7:00 and 4:00 PM. Not only that, summer vacations would be nicer too as we could stay out at the beach longer or enjoy other outdoor activities longer.
It might also have a nice side effect combating the obesity epidemic we're all facing if we gave people more daylight time to play outside.
If the FTC really wanted to fix the mess surrounding copyright it'd give copyright the same term length as patents, 20 years.
The explosion of innovation coming from that simple act would likely generate so much economic activity, it could offset the losses from the current credit crisis.
True, so true.
Although Dalek Caan (Khan?) went insane by going into the Time Locked timestream. Since he broke the lock would that make everyone else okay to enter, or would they also go insane. Either way, it *would* make for some good story telling.
Heck, I'd love to see Old Cybermen go up against New Cybermen. Or the Doctor to run into some of his other companions.
maybe it is time for a female Doctor? I like the potential...
Particularly if they bring back Jenny somehow. "You're my dad, but now you're my mum?"
Me, I'm still hoping that they figure out a way for the Doctor to break to the time locks on the Time War so that they can do another Five Doctors episode with the remaining Doctor's still living.
Just don't try it with a mac mini - two putty knives and 4 hours later you'll be wishing you either paid the premium or didn't get a mac mini.
This really depends on whether or not you watched any of the online videos detailing how to open the Mini. I was able to open my G4 Mac Mini in less than ten minutes with a butter knife and an old metal spatula with no slots in it. Once the case was open I only had to pop a few screws to lift the DVD / hard drive enclosure, and the RAM was easily exposed. At this point it only took me about five minutes to swap the chip out.
It would have gone faster had the back memory clip not gotten caught on the metal snaps to the rear of the Mini, preventing me from opening it all the way. It took a bit of chip wiggling, while lifting / inserting it on an angle, in order to swap it. Overall though, it wasn't that hard.
All told, it took me less than 30 minutes to swap out the RAM and get the Mac back up and running again.
I will give you props on the hard-drive swap though. That looks a touch more complicated since you need to remove delicate wires from the main-board so you can take the hard drive enclosure completely out of the case. Despite this I plan on swapping out the hard-drive for a faster, larger, one just before "Snow Leopard" comes out. It is likely that when "Snow Leopard" finally comes out, copies of Leopard will be hard, if not impossible, to find. Since I doubt it will run on the G4 chip in my Mini, Leopard will be my last chance to upgrade the operating system in this machine.
But yet, almost the entirety of Ontario voted Tory.
That's because after watching the all leaders debate it was obvious that the opposition simply didn't provide any leaders of note.
Stéphane Dion was barely comprehensible and it actually hurt to hear him attempt to speak English. The "Green Shift" plan he was trying to endorse was complicated and definitely required someone who would have been able to communicate, and defend, it clearly. The fact that he was incomprehensible to the majority of the populace, who don't speak french, really hurt him and the chances of his party. It never ceases to amaze me that the Liberals keep picking incomprehensible leaders from Québec, then lament why they can't seem to win elections. I would have accepted Bob Rae over Dion and, being old enough to remember what it was like to live in Bob's NDP Ontario, that's saying something.
Jack Layton didn't have a hope in Ontario because he still has to overcome peoples memories of Bob Rae's Ontario. Yes, I understand Rae had a tough time, what with the recession and all, it still doesn't change the fact that a lot of people were simply unhappy with Rae and, by extension, the NDP. I also think Layton had a hard time because, when he looked directly into the camera, he had a fake appearing smile that simply made you feel he couldn't be trusted. Throw in the fact that the NDP, as a whole, simply have a tough time because people see them as being far too socialist for their own good, they are often considered to have uncomfortably close ties to the Canadians Against Work and other Unions, and they never seem willing to admit that their social agenda would require them to raise taxes considerably, makes them a difficult choice for most people.
Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc Québecois leader, simply wasn't able to be the PM. He even admitted as much in the debate, since his party only runs candidates in Québec. Honestly, I don't even know why he was allowed to be part of the debate. You should be required to have candidates running in over 95% of all ridings to be included in the national leaders debate. It's a shame really, some of what he said was actually interesting, even if it was Québec centric; he might even have picked up a few seats *outside* of Québec.
Elizabeth May, the Green Party leader, seemed to be the most well spoken and appeared to be intelligent enough by being able to call up facts and figures to bolster her arguments without too much difficulty. Definitely a smart woman there, but her party is seen as the "Environmental Issues Only" party. While they have a number of planks to their platform, they have had a hard time conveying them to the electorate. Until they do, they simply won't be considered a viable choice to the voting public.
That left Stephen Harper who, in the minds of the people, would be better than the other four choices. Yet anyone I talked to, outside of dyed in the wool (small "c") conservatives, they were absolutely scared witless that Harper would get his majority. He is very brusque, combative, uncooperative, unsympathetic, and appears to have a hidden ultra conservative agenda that he would push with impunity if given half a chance.
As it is the next couple of years aren't going to be fun in Canada as we watch the opposition fein that they're going to vote down some piece of unwanted legislation, triggering a snap election, only to have half of them not show up for work the next day so that the government won't fall until the opposition's poll numbers look good.
Yeah because Dion and his hacks decided to clam up and not vote on any bills because Harper turned every one into a confidence vote.
Exactly. Now we all get to watch as Harper does it again. Dion kept trying to paint himself as the only leader who could handle things yet, as the official opposition, he repeatedly demonstrated that he didn't have the force of will to vote against the government and trigger a snap election.
Harper's been acting as a defacto majority for the entire time he's been in office. He tags the "confidence vote" rider on every single piece of legislation he puts forward knowing full well that the opposition won't, despite people vehemently screaming that they didn't want what Harper was pushing, have the guts to take him to task for it.
Because of our first past the post election system, where only 37.64% of the populace gave the Conservatives 143 seats, 12 away from a majority, politicians are more worried about looking good to the electorate so that they'll get a majority next time. Harper knows this giving him, and his Conservative allies, the opportunity to do pretty much whatever he wants.
Harper and his Conservative party have no desire to actually work with the representatives of the other 62.36% of populace, like we expect them to, so we end up with laws the majority don't want, pedantic name calling and, taxpayer funded gamesmanship.
And will someone please tell me why Harper isn't in jail yet for violating his own fixed election dates law? This election wasn't caused by the opposition voting down a piece of legislation, they'd already shown they don't have the courage, it was initiated by Harper and his party directly. So I'm wondering, why aren't they in jail yet? Oh wait, I forget, laws don't apply to politicians only to those they "represent".
the geek's notion of creativity seems to begin and end in imitation
Barring dumb luck, creativity in a specific skill can only be exercised once you have a working knowledge of how that skill works.
Building upon, or imitating, prior knowledge and endeavors gives a person the technical skills they need to exercise their creativity.
Both feel like an eternity if there isn't a pen and paper around.
You carry around a bag with a laptop and it has never occurred to you to put said pen and paper in one of the zipper sections?
If that was the standard, then yes it would be better, assuming the user did not mind having to use a computer to charge.
My Apple branded video docking kit for the iPod came with one of these.
http://store.apple.com/ca/product/MB051LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA4NA&mco=MTAxMjUx
It's a wall plugable USB power source. Not only does it charge my iPod at work, but I use it with my Play 'n Charge kit for the X-Box 360. The 360 is more than 8 feet away, put the wall plug next to my chair isn't. I don't see a reason that a company couldn't just make a bigger one with 4 ports in it, allowing you to charge most of your USB devices without the need for a rat's nest of bulky adapters.
But copyright law needs to exist in some way.
I think most people would agree with you. The problem is that copyrights are now so interminably long that any child born today will live, grow old, and die before they are able to build upon the culture they were exposed to during their lifetime.
And even under the old system which gave copyright for 35 years, which most /.ers agree with that system, this work would still be covered under those conditions.
The original copyright term length was 14 years, with the option to renew for another 14 if the original author was still alive. In total, 28 years. When you consider the fluid nature of ideas along with the wired world we're now living in, copyrights intended goal of promoting the useful sciences and arts mean that even 28 years is now too long. Something more like 10 + 10, or 15 and 10 would make much more sense.
A vibrant, healthy, prosperous, culture is based in large part on it's ability to make use of the ideas, concepts, and ingenuity of others. An idea once shared becomes part of the culture of those who experience it. By artificially locking those ideas and concepts away from further expansion, stifling inspiration of new ideas for over 100 years, the copyright holders are essentially negating the innovation and progress that short term copyright was meant to foster; in effect this results in the wholesale theft of our culture.
Now while it's true that "Watchmen" was created in 1986, 22 years ago, and assuming the original copyright rules were still in play, then by all rights this "intellectual property" would be entering the public domain in 6 years. If we did it more sanely, it would have either entered the public domain 2 years ago, or 3 years from now.
Instead, assuming the media cartels don't bribe / lobby the government for another copyright term extension, "Watchmen" won't exit public domain until at *least* 2081 / 2106, or if it somehow reverts to Alan Moore and he lives to age 80, 2136. The idea that locking up the potential for innovation and the fostering of new concepts / ideas for this long somehow benefits society, its utterly ridiculous. Under these rules not one single person alive on Slashdot today, who might have been inspired by "Watchmen", will be able to make use of that inspiration... *EVER*.
This is what most people mean when they talk about the tragedy of copyright law, not the common misconception that we believe it is somehow wrong people are getting paid for their work. For example: I have ideas, heavily inspired by the culture I was exposed to in the 1970s-80s. I am inspired, I want to create and ultimately be paid for my work. But because of the utterly unrealistic term lengths of copyright, my ingenuity and creativity has been stifled and my ideas will never be realized nor will my ideas ever inspire others as I was inspired.
Right about now, after pointing out that I have ideas I want to realize and be paid for, is where someone usually pipes in and talks about how we need to "properly compensate artists / authors for their work", and that by trying to draw upon the culture that these "artists and authors" have created, that I'm some kind of commie pirate.
I counter by asking: Why do authors, artists, and other holders of copyright believe they are somehow special and deserving of continued payment on works created multiple decades ago? Any other person would be laughed out of a job if they told their employer they wanted a royalty check every time someone used a concept, idea, or in any other way used the product of their labor. Consider this:
* No matter how long you keep your car, when you take it out for a spin, you will never send a royalty check to the factory worker who assembled it.
* A judge, who's precedent is cited in a court case, will never receive a royalty check when someone cites their interpretation of the law.
* When you put food in your fridge, you will neve
Those are definitely factors, but the reason I see TV advertising as one of the major problems is that it gives money a huge say in determining the outcome of elections.
Which is why, by law, all political advertising in an election year should be free.
The EM spectrum is a public resource owned by all and is leased to media companies. To keep up with the societal changes brought about with our transition to a mass media culture, those leases should be rewritten to allow the government to make use of this public resource, during an election year, with no cost. This would make running for office much cheaper, if not free.
Couple this with disallowing donations from lobby groups and corporations, since it is the costs of running a campaign that precipitate the need for such donations, and perhaps we might start getting a government for the people again.
Keys in cars are a market-driven thing, demanded by the consumer. They are not there to protect the car-makers.
True, they are there to protect the owners. Generally if you have the key you are *usually* the owner of the vehicle or someone authorized by the owner. Just like if you have the CD you are *usually* the copyright holder or, in the case of a legitimate purchase of a copy, someone authorized by the copyright holder.
On a more practical note, since the keyhole only accepts one key and is only used for one purpose - you can just leave the key in there all the time if you aren't worried about security.
This is true and I can't argue with that.
Try that with a game CD and you will lose the use of your CD drive for other purposes.
True. Of course, since you would only need the CD in the drive when you want to play that particular game, it wouldn't make much sense to keep it in there all the time.
The _other_ alternative is to release a product without the protection, thus making the paid-for product as good as the pirated product.
I totally agree with you. I absolutely _hate_ DRM. It limits my ability to make backups of my legally purchased software and essentially treats me like a criminal. I have always found it funny how the "pirate" version is nearly almost always better than the purchased product when it comes to annoyances caused by DRM and authentication servers (the assumption that every possible customer has an active internet connection is naive).
Now while it is true that without DRM, people could fake the install key or copy the CD, this is just as true _with_ restrive DRM and authentication servers. I'm not naive, people are still going to infringe the original owner's copyrights. You simply can't stop it because if we can see it, hear it, install it, it can be copied.
Despite these realities and my loathing of DRM, its important to remember that while I own the physical plastic disk, and the right to use the copy of software on said disk for personal uses, I don't actually _own_ the software itself, the copyright holder does. While that copy is mine to do with as I please, copyright law does limit what I am allowed to do with the software in terms of distribution to other people. In light of this, as long as I'm not limited as to when, or how, I can use the software, I think it's reasonable for the copyright holder to ask that the disc be in the drive or, for those wanting the "disk-less" install and/or internet download, having a unique installation key to satisfy my proof of purchase.
Even when I buy a game, I'll frequently use the pirate cracks on it because of the stupid copy protection schemes. Who ever thought that the "put the disc in the drive" scheme was a good idea? Sheesh.
Let's reorder this quote shall we?
Even when I buy a car, I'll frequently hot-wire it because of the stupid key. Who ever thought that the "put the key in the ignition" scheme was a good idea? Sheesh.
Putting the original CD in the drive, just like putting the key in the ignition of your car, *usually* proves that you own it. I'm willing to do this simple, trivial task, because the alternatives, online authentication services, treat people who have already purchased the product like common criminals. "Internet down, don't have internet at all? Well sorry, we can't authenticate you and we can't risk that you're not a pirate out to steal our stuff so, you don't get to play." This recent trend of online activation, and authenticating every single use of a purchased good, with a central authority should be repugnant and insulting to those who are willing to, and have, legitimately purchase a product.
I don't mind buying games that I enjoy. I don't even mind proving ownership of said game by putting the CD in the drive. Just don't teat me like a criminal by loading the disk with DRM that prevents me from making backup copies or telling me, through authentication services, when I can and can't play the game I've paid for. And they wonder why people want to infringe their copyrights?
There are only so many ideas you can explore that are interesting to read. When are we going to run out of material you may use without causing someone to sue you for plagiarism?
I'd say we're there already. Just take a look at the glut of modern films, TV, etc... When was the last time you saw something that you couldn't figure out exactly how it was going to end within a few minutes of starting it?
Because copyrights are so long now and we aren't able to draw upon the recent collected works that came before us, nearly everything recently produced has been reduced to the most basic formula of storytelling possible. They simply *can't* make anything interesting or non-formulaic, because if they do, they *could* be sued over the similarities to some other protected content.
What I find funny about this is that the large corporations lobbying for increased copyright extensions and protections are actually *reducing* their potential to make money. As entertainment becomes more and more formulaic and uninteresting, it reduces the potential audience for it thereby reducing returns.
Just imagine if the original copyright terms of 14 + 14 years were still around. Universal could make a 300 Million gross return Star Wars block buster just as well as Fox could; Fox could make a 300 Million gross return Battlestar feature, just like Universal could. Hell, both companies could work together to make a two part Star Trek feature film in the same summer and make loads of cash.
Yet these potential profits will never see the light of day because both companies, through the MPAA, lobbied to have laws passed to protect their current revenue streams thereby closing off others, and directly limit their ability to make money. Someone with shares in media companies should seriously consider suing them over their efforts to reduce profitability like this.
Other than a fun toy to play with once in a while, I wouldn't really want one of these.
My grandmother might though. For while she is more than capable of standing in the kitchen cooking for an hour or two, she has a heart condition that weakens her from simple walking. Something like this would be great for her as she would finally be able to go out for some fresh air and shopping, without having to stop for a few minutes every other park bench.
It also looks much smaller and lighter than a wheelchair and would probably fit in the backseat of a car, leaving ample space for whatever shopping she did. Even the quick charging feature is nice as she could sit on a mall bench next to Customer Service for the hour it's charging.
While I do agree with you, the kind of person who will probably buy the Winglet *should* go out and get a bike instead, it still doesn't change the fact that for people like my granny it could given them a type of freedom they haven't had in a long while.
Can you imagine the kind of hurt we'd be in for as a society with a technology such as this?
Try to imagine a mega church having one of these things.
Everyone's sitting in the pews, the Reverend is off spouting something or other about a great evil when all of a sudden "This is the Lord your God, the Reverend is my agent on this earth. For he knows, as I do, what is most evil. As my children, you will do whatever he commands in the fight against the darkness."
"True" believers can already be a touch over zealous, imagine how much worse it would be with the "word of god" rolling through their heads!
Why not half man and half bearpig?
Because the world doesn't need another Ron Jeremy.
Now a half woman half cat that looks like Jessica Biel in a sexy leotard? Snarf!!
Now I could see your point with a small TV, but with a 50+ inch it's simply amazing. No monkeying around with media servers or wireless networks, everything was in one spot. VLC plays full screen and would correctly display the correct aspect ratios for my stuff. Showing the family a funny YouTube video was much easier than everyone crowding around the computer.
It was also nice to web browse between commercials, or check my e-mail. Not to mention the Hi-Def Apple Movie Trailer site was something to behold.
If you haven't done it yet, I would strongly recommend you hook your PC up to your TV. Especially now with the LCD ones out there, you don't have to worry so much about screen burn like I did. I'm *almost* tempted to buy a new LCD TV just so I can hook up my Mac again, it's just hard to justify a new TV purchase when the one you have works perfectly okay.
And well, once you'd gotten that all figured out, it was simply way too much fun making it say cool stuff. Like back in the eighth grade, we had a whole lab of C=64s and a friend managed to swap the teachers GEOS boot disk with a SAM Sayit disk that, when loaded, would play back this text:
"Fawk Ewe Doodz, I yam en EEELEEET coedawr, U geiz awl sawck."
Speech in games, cool.
Pranking your teacher, priceless.
You also missed the other argument I had made, I've highlighted it in bold: WCLPeter said: "I'm sure the person who makes deliveries, or provides other needed services to the business, would disagree with you." This would include people like the electrician fixing a lighting fixture, or the plumber who's installing a new drain at the smoke filled bar. Or anyone else you can think of who provides needed services to the business. Their jobs are dangerous enough, there is no need to subject them to unnecessary, concentrated, carcinogenic compounds. And in the case of restaurants, there has been non smoking in food prep areas for over a decade in all the states now. Yes, and with the door separating the kitchen and the dining area constantly being opened and closed all day, do you honestly think second hand smoke stays in the dining area? BTW, in case your wondering, benzines which is present in some automobile exhaust is a more dangerous chemical, why don't you outlaw cars at automobile service centers too. True, but if you've ever taken your car in for servicing you'd probably notice that the garage is in a large, high ceilinged, well ventilated space. Again, safety standards mandated to reduce unnecessary risks to the staff. Often, for good measure, I have seldom seen them close the big bay doors. When they do, they always vent the vehicles exhaust outside. Why don't you outlaw tobacco in the first place. It's all about personal responsibility and freedom of choice.
In a free society, mature, responsible adults should have the right to make their own decisions and choices, good or bad. They are also responsible for the results of their choices. Part of this responsibility is recognizing that when others haven't made the same choices as them, they have no right to subject others to their consequences. The problem we're seeing here though is that people often forget this part when talking about being personally responsible.
So let's recap:
If you want to smoke, that's fine with me. Really. I fully and wholeheartedly support your right to make the choice to smoke. Seriously. You can smoke in your car, your boat, your house, your cabin, out on the sidewalk. You can even smoke outside in the designated areas at government or privately owned buildings. No-one is stopping you from smoking.
Smoking is a personal choice that you made for yourself, a choice you are personally and solely responsible for. Unfortunately the consequences of your choice could result in someone else losing their life through no action of their own. This means you should take personal, and moral, responsibility to ensure that no one else is subjected to the consequences of your choice. Yet sadly, smokers as a whole have shown they are unable, or unwilling, to take personal responsibility in this matter.
We as a society have had no choice but to craft new safety standards that stop smokers from deliberately, and needlessly, poisoning someone's workplace or other public gathering place and risking the lives of others.