The speed of sound is independent of density, it depends only on the temperature.
Nonsense. The speed of sound in a medium depends on the density of the medium. Compare for example the speed of sound in seawater and air (at sealevel) of the same temperature (it will differ greatly). Then compare the speed of sound in warm and cold water (it will be practically the same).
You are the moron. I suspect you are not fucking though.
No, of course changing some bits isn't going to make it legit, since the other parts (that you didn't change) are still copyrighted. You would have to change everything in order for it to be legit. At that point, you have effectively rewritten the application.
To come back to the fruit-analogy: you will have rewritten the application using the same basic building blocks (the CPU instruction set), just like the cloned fruit will be different, but consist of the same building blocks (the genes).
I'm confused now. I thought IP was considered bad around here. Are we now supposed to feel sorry for Mr. Hinkley? Is IP only bad in the hands of corporations, but good when owned by individuals? Tell me what to believe!!!
Do you know anything about plants? The clones _will_ be identical,
Genetically identical, but not physically identical. This in contrast to software (programs, music, video), where each copy is completely identical to the original in each and every way.
Copyrights are the lifetime of the author plus 120 years. This is infinite time for all practical purposes since the copyright
will outlive us
You've heard of classical music, right? Oh, you don't like classical music? Well that's just too bad. I guess you *will* have to wait a little then before you are allowed to copy the latest Britney Spears album...
You are so wrong, and so desperately trying to be right, it's almost comical.
the fruit-copies won't be identical
nobody "invented" or "wrote" fruit
just like with buying and growing fruit, you are free to buy music, make your own interpretation of it (i.e. learn to play an instrument and sing, then make your own version of the song) and sell that (as long as you pay royalties, which is not really all that different from having to pay for the land/food/water that you'll need to grow "copies" of your fruit).
Michael, where did you get the information that Oxford University will charge an extortionate price, and that
the drug will be hideously expensive?
If your main gripe is the non-GPL license of the software, there are betters way to bring up that issue. Attacking a university for something that they haven't done yet, and for which you have no proof that they will do is very unprofessional. Don't even get me started about the "kiddieporn"-angle, that part was even worse...
In my interpeation of the GPL the combined work (i.e. the distribution) has to be GPL:ed as well.
Your interpretation is wrong. A derived work has to be GPLd, but aggregation of GPLd and non-GPLd work is specifically allowed by the GPL license. This is why for example SuSe can have their closed-source and copyrighted YaST installer on the same CD as GPLd code; it is "mere aggregation", as mentioned in the GPL.
No, it doesn't. If they have even one single custom bootscript or package-manager on there (and I bet they do), then you can NOT distribute verbatim copies of their work.
Under the GPL you can ask them for the source of all the GPLd code they use, and then modify and/or distrute that, but that's about all the GPL lets you do.
It's amazing to see the GPL understood so badly by the people proclaiming its virtues, and even more amazing to read this whole discussion and realize that it is, in fact, all about money, and not at all about freedom.
I would call you all cheap bastards, but then I'd be moderated down...;)
"(Score: 5, Insightful)" my ass...
That's not insightful, it's the rant of someone who doesn't know shit about the GPL and copyright. The distribution itself is copyrighted, it is a particular form in which other material is presented (think of it as the software analog to a music-compilation CD). You cannot simply take the ISO image and give away copies of it. What you *can* do is ask for the source to all the components used (which is your right under the GPL), and then make your own distribution from that.
On a sidenote, it is interesting to see how the slashdot community that is always quick to point out that it's "free as in speech, not as in beer", is also quick to find ways by which to assure that they don't have to pay anything...
Open Source hardware running Free
software -- wheee!
"wheee" indeed... The thing is running at 60 MHz. LEON may be "open-source", but I'll stick to Intel processors that are 10 times faster and probably cheaper, thank you.
Actually, the patent claims BOTH appearance and behaviour changes, that is: both must be possible. If you have something like WinAMP, which only changes appearance, it would not infringe on the patent. Systems that do like WinAMP existed before this patent was filed.
It would seem to me (but IANAL and all that) that changing the behaviour as well is a logical extension, and therefor not patentable.
Are you suggesting that physical labour is a bad thing?
No, I'm suggesting that most people would rather not do physical labour, and that therefore if they do, they should be compensated for it. After all, if they liked it, they would do it for free (to paraphrase you).
It's like saying Metallica got into the business to make money, but
Prince is saying he is willing to forego profit for the art.
And Prince can easily do that because he has a steady income from royalties on his previous work, and doesn't really need to work anymore. Give me a few million in the bank so that I never need to work again, and I too will give away all the code I ever wrote for free, and will continue to do so in the future.
The award ran the
company for about a year, but they were a "bunch of Talented People (tm)" that were a one trick
pony, and since nobody wanted to buy their trick anymore, they dried up and blew away.
That probably has more to do with the fact that nobody really uses disk-compression anymore. With current harddrives, why bother?
2. there are ways of *protecting* your art without out copyrights. I have used such methods. One only needs
to prove that the art was done at a specific period of time. ie. with music, make a demo of the song and mail
it to yourself so that you have the post office's time stamp. There are many cases where this is accepted.
Accepted wby whom, for what? A work of art is copyrighted by default. Just because you don't print "Copyright (C) 2001 Enochian" on it somewhere does not change this. What you described is in fact a way of proving that you own the COPYRIGHT at a later time, in case you find somebody copied your work. If you truly don't care about copyright, it doesn't need this kind of protection, and you should just put your work in the public domain, forfeiting all rights to it.
And btw, GOOD artists perform/create their art out of devotion to the art itself. Not to make money.
Good programmers create programs out of devotion to the art of programming, not to make money
Good doctors treat patients out of dedication to human wellbeing, not to make money
Good (insert random job here) do their work because they like it, not for money.
Meanwhile, all these people have bills to pay and perhaps a family to feed. Do you seriously propose that people with a talent for music, writing, or programming do so for free out of love for the art, and get a job as a physical laboror (or anything else that the person deems unpleasant, and therefore is worthy of compensation) to earn money?
people will have ideas and be creative whether
or not you give them a 'right to be greedy' excuse
Ofcourse they will. However if it then takes 2 billion to develop that idea into an actual product, things change. Without copyright or IP protection, nobody will spend the 2 billion to develop it, and the product will never see the light of day. Why waste 2 billion if, once you're done, anyone can take your finished product and copy and sell it, making it impossible for you to recoup the cost? People will always have ideas, but copyright/IP isn't so much about ideas as it is about providing an incentive to bring those ideas to market. Yes, the system isn't perfect, and some people abuse it. That does not make it inherently wrong.
Do you really want some sex offender, particularly a pedophile,
playing with your kids?
While I would probably agree if I had kids of my own, I do think this kind of reasoning is very, very dangerous. You are basically punishing such a person for life, completely abandoning the whole "pay your debt to society, start over" thing.
So? Since when has the physical location of a website mattered?
It has been argued countless times on slashdot that the internet is international, and should not conform to national law (see this discussion for example: http://slashdot.org/articles/00/11/20/1657238.shtm l), and now you come along and proclaim this to be a US site, just because you can't read french? How hypocrite can you get?
IANAL, but
I'm positive the Home Recording Act says this kind of BS is illegal.
And that's why YANAL. "This kind of BS" is not illegal. The home recording act says that a consumer can record public broadcast, it does not specify that equipment manufacturers should assist the consumer in that quest, nor does it prohibit broadcasters from scrambling the signal and other such measures.
"open" does not mean "free" (either as in "free beer" or "free speech"), it just mean that the specification is available to anyone, and the algorithm can be licensed by anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. The speed of sound in a medium depends on the density of the medium. Compare for example the speed of sound in seawater and air (at sealevel) of the same temperature (it will differ greatly). Then compare the speed of sound in warm and cold water (it will be practically the same).
You are the moron. I suspect you are not fucking though.
No, of course changing some bits isn't going to make it legit, since the other parts (that you didn't change) are still copyrighted. You would have to change everything in order for it to be legit. At that point, you have effectively rewritten the application.
To come back to the fruit-analogy: you will have rewritten the application using the same basic building blocks (the CPU instruction set), just like the cloned fruit will be different, but consist of the same building blocks (the genes).
I'm confused now. I thought IP was considered bad around here. Are we now supposed to feel sorry for Mr. Hinkley? Is IP only bad in the hands of corporations, but good when owned by individuals? Tell me what to believe!!!
Genetically identical, but not physically identical. This in contrast to software (programs, music, video), where each copy is completely identical to the original in each and every way.
You've heard of classical music, right? Oh, you don't like classical music? Well that's just too bad. I guess you *will* have to wait a little then before you are allowed to copy the latest Britney Spears album...
Michael, where did you get the information that Oxford University will charge an extortionate price, and that the drug will be hideously expensive?
If your main gripe is the non-GPL license of the software, there are betters way to bring up that issue. Attacking a university for something that they haven't done yet, and for which you have no proof that they will do is very unprofessional. Don't even get me started about the "kiddieporn"-angle, that part was even worse...
Your interpretation is wrong. A derived work has to be GPLd, but aggregation of GPLd and non-GPLd work is specifically allowed by the GPL license. This is why for example SuSe can have their closed-source and copyrighted YaST installer on the same CD as GPLd code; it is "mere aggregation", as mentioned in the GPL.
Under the GPL you can ask them for the source of all the GPLd code they use, and then modify and/or distrute that, but that's about all the GPL lets you do.
It's amazing to see the GPL understood so badly by the people proclaiming its virtues, and even more amazing to read this whole discussion and realize that it is, in fact, all about money, and not at all about freedom. ;)
I would call you all cheap bastards, but then I'd be moderated down...
That's not insightful, it's the rant of someone who doesn't know shit about the GPL and copyright. The distribution itself is copyrighted, it is a particular form in which other material is presented (think of it as the software analog to a music-compilation CD). You cannot simply take the ISO image and give away copies of it. What you *can* do is ask for the source to all the components used (which is your right under the GPL), and then make your own distribution from that.
On a sidenote, it is interesting to see how the slashdot community that is always quick to point out that it's "free as in speech, not as in beer", is also quick to find ways by which to assure that they don't have to pay anything...
"wheee" indeed... The thing is running at 60 MHz. LEON may be "open-source", but I'll stick to Intel processors that are 10 times faster and probably cheaper, thank you.
Actually, the patent claims BOTH appearance and behaviour changes, that is: both must be possible. If you have something like WinAMP, which only changes appearance, it would not infringe on the patent. Systems that do like WinAMP existed before this patent was filed.
It would seem to me (but IANAL and all that) that changing the behaviour as well is a logical extension, and therefor not patentable.
No, I'm suggesting that most people would rather not do physical labour, and that therefore if they do, they should be compensated for it. After all, if they liked it, they would do it for free (to paraphrase you).
And Prince can easily do that because he has a steady income from royalties on his previous work, and doesn't really need to work anymore. Give me a few million in the bank so that I never need to work again, and I too will give away all the code I ever wrote for free, and will continue to do so in the future.
That probably has more to do with the fact that nobody really uses disk-compression anymore. With current harddrives, why bother?
Accepted wby whom, for what? A work of art is copyrighted by default. Just because you don't print "Copyright (C) 2001 Enochian" on it somewhere does not change this. What you described is in fact a way of proving that you own the COPYRIGHT at a later time, in case you find somebody copied your work. If you truly don't care about copyright, it doesn't need this kind of protection, and you should just put your work in the public domain, forfeiting all rights to it.
And btw, GOOD artists perform/create their art out of devotion to the art itself. Not to make money.
- Good programmers create programs out of devotion to the art of programming, not to make money
- Good doctors treat patients out of dedication to human wellbeing, not to make money
- Good (insert random job here) do their work because they like it, not for money.
Meanwhile, all these people have bills to pay and perhaps a family to feed. Do you seriously propose that people with a talent for music, writing, or programming do so for free out of love for the art, and get a job as a physical laboror (or anything else that the person deems unpleasant, and therefore is worthy of compensation) to earn money?Ofcourse they will. However if it then takes 2 billion to develop that idea into an actual product, things change. Without copyright or IP protection, nobody will spend the 2 billion to develop it, and the product will never see the light of day. Why waste 2 billion if, once you're done, anyone can take your finished product and copy and sell it, making it impossible for you to recoup the cost? People will always have ideas, but copyright/IP isn't so much about ideas as it is about providing an incentive to bring those ideas to market. Yes, the system isn't perfect, and some people abuse it. That does not make it inherently wrong.
And not just this crime, but any crime. If someone no longer feels safe after they've been robbed, should the robber therefore be put away for life?
While I would probably agree if I had kids of my own, I do think this kind of reasoning is very, very dangerous. You are basically punishing such a person for life, completely abandoning the whole "pay your debt to society, start over" thing.
So? Since when has the physical location of a website mattered? It has been argued countless times on slashdot that the internet is international, and should not conform to national law (see this discussion for example: http://slashdot.org/articles/00/11/20/1657238.shtm l), and now you come along and proclaim this to be a US site, just because you can't read french? How hypocrite can you get?
That's why photocopy machines are taxed.
And that's why YANAL. "This kind of BS" is not illegal. The home recording act says that a consumer can record public broadcast, it does not specify that equipment manufacturers should assist the consumer in that quest, nor does it prohibit broadcasters from scrambling the signal and other such measures.
CES ended last tuesday, so wherever this is going to be introduced, it's not going to be at CES.
"open" does not mean "free" (either as in "free beer" or "free speech"), it just mean that the specification is available to anyone, and the algorithm can be licensed by anyone.
It's because a lot of research usually goes into developing those algorithms, and that research needs to be paid for.