The movie studios hold the copyright and the distribution rights to their movies. CleanFlicks is essentially creating another version of the movie without the studios permission and generating a revenue stream from it. That's not right. How would the Mormon community feel if I made an "Edited to Make it More Appropriate" version of the Book of Mormon and started selling/renting out my version? What if I added in violence (not that there's not alredy enough) and made Jesus gay? (Or, maybe change the testimony of Joseph Smith so he starts out eating a peyote button to get his prophesy?) Think the Mormon churce would be OK with that? They should, right? After all, I'm only creating a version I think is more appropriate.
Actually, you would need to consider the difference in food consumption between the Segway riders and a bike rider. Unless, of course, you believe the guys on the Segway didn't eat..;)
You caught the (not as rare as it should be) exception to rule...and I was wrong on the Windows trademark.
However, I could point out a few open source trademarks that also should be shunned in the same way: Red Hat(R), Fedora (R), GNU(R).
Others - Novell has: Ferret, Envoy. IBM has: Balance, Candle, Catapult, Current, Domino, Icing, Metaphor, etc.
Not excusing the lack of accurate information in my previous post - just pointing out that trademarking common words is something every corporation does and MS shouldn't be singled out for doing so.
"Kudos to the funny comeback however everything about the human body is needed in order for us to survive except for the appendix it seems. We couldn't have one thing develop without having something else as well, which goes against evolution which implies gradual changes. We need all of our organs and all the capabilities that our cells have to differentiate, multiply, copy dna, etc. is all needed at the same time so gradual changes would not suffice for us to exist based solely on evolution."
Good point! After all, we can't survive without all of our limbs, eyes, lungs, kidneys, etc. Oh, wait, yes we can.
BTW - evolution isn't based on gradual changes. It's based on genetic mutations that can result in small or big changes. Those changes remain in the gene pool if they aid in the reproductive success of the species.
Also, I can't really understand you intelligent designers. You say life is too complex to have "just happened." Yet, you're happy to believe that your creator, with the power and complex knowledge necessary to create life, has always just existed...
"Just because someone/something doesn't often admit it's wrong doesn't mean they're right the rest of the time. Some of the people that were most wrong are those that will never retract or concede."
Take Bill O'Reilly for example...no, really, take him.
Honda, Toyota...lots of others. They are both losing money on every hybrid they sell. It's the cost of building a market. Microsoft losing money on Xbox hardware/games is the cost of entering a pretty mature market. Because they have other product lines that enable them to stay profitable as a whole doesn't make their actions bad.
What does that matter? What does their having money from other divisions to cover their losses in games have to do with the rightness or wrongness of their actions?
If a startup manages to get more VC money than their rivals are they evil for running at a loss just because they have more upfront money to cover operating expenses?
OK...It's the cost of establishing a position in the console gaming market. Their business practices aren't different from any of their competitors. It is ridiculous to portray them as doing something wrong here.
For any game publisher, on any platform, there's only a few games that are truly profitable and those cover the costs of publishing all of the other games in their list. Are all game publishers evil because they lose money entering new niches in the game market?
"I wasn't even born when the Copyright Act of 1978 was passed, and I wasn't old enough to vote when the 105th Congress (NET Act, Bono Act, DMCA) was elected. How can "we" be responsible?"
The "we" is the American public, of which you are a part.
"Where? If you suggest a web-based auction venue, does "0 results" mean anything to you?"
It sure does, it means you're SOL. Or, you could go and steal a copy. Better yet, why don't you go and steal a Van Gogh? He isn't making them anymore and I bet your same web-based auction venue has "0 results" as well - I guess that entitles you to a free one.
"It might be their intellectual property but it's my culture, dammit."
No it isn't - it's our culture. And "we" passed laws granting the protections Google seems bent on ignoring. If you don't like the laws vote for people who will change the law. I'm all for civil disobedience, but you have to be willing to pay the price for it until the laws are changed.
"If they won't keep it in print and sell me a copy, which I'm willing to pay for, then they should keep their mouths shut when I go and find one for myself."
If you want it bad enough to steal it, why not go and buy a used copy? I noticed that your HTTP link by your name goes to a software engineering company. Do you want your customers selling (or giving away) older versions of what you've created to each other because you've taken them off the market?
Your argument isn't entirely valid. The CDC reports that, at least in terms of deaths of children, the effect of DDT causing pre-term births and shorter durations of breast-feeding (babies don't breastfeed for as long on mothers with DDT levels caused by spraying) pretty much causes a zero sum gain. True, wiping out a good portion of the mosquitos may save some lives, but it is offset by the loss in life due to babies being born prematurely and more illness-related deaths caused by weaker immune systems. (Due to the breastfeeding issue explained above.) Those children will be even more susceptible to malaria.
I agree that there are always tradeoffs that have to be made when solving a problem. But attacking the disease seems be a better route for now. You'll never wipe out the mosquito, and to even try would mean dumping more and more DDT in to the environment. There are, probably, downsides to attacking the disease as well as you could cause it to mutate in to a more virulent form.
You should probably look at more sources than wikipedia... A quick search on the CDC site shows that DDT causes damage to the nervous system, liver, and causes more pre-term births to occur. It is NOT an innocuous chemical.
Instead of saying "Or should I say that there is more scientific evidence to use DDT vs not to use it.", you should say "based on my very limited knowledge (gained through a brief entry on wikipedia) DDT sounds great!"...
It may not make passports "magically" impossible to duplicate or forge, but it may raise the bar and make it a whole lot more difficult. It could be that we're too worried about security in the US, but assuming we're not, what do you suggest we do to increase our confidence that the people who are coming in and out of the country are who they say they are?
If you'd RTFA you'd understand that they were invited there to show techniques that hackers use so MS developers can have a better understanding of what to think about when they code. They weren't there to do a line-by-line security review.
It's funny how mis-information impacts the truth over time.
The only thing that was ever in dispute was whether or not the memo itself was legitimate, not whether the statements in the memo were accurate. No one has ever disputed the statements in the memo accurately depicted Bush's military record. They have, however, managed to distract lots of folks from the truth by focusing everyone's attention on the legitimacy of the source of the paper they were written on.
Yes, I do. MS is re-working lots of their Internet properties to make sure they work across platforms and browsers. MSN, for example, has a policy of avoiding ActiveX components and are re-designing their pages to ensure a more consistant experience for a broad range of users using Firefox and Opera.
"The fact is, you can use AJAX techniques in a completely backwards-compatible manner, so browsers that can handle it get the new interface, and browsers that can't get the traditional old Hotmail interface. Lots of people with older browsers simply isn't a factor.
Furthermore, it's not like there were a lack of people with browsers that could support AJAX. Internet Explorer 4 supports it! Practically speaking, the vast majority of web surfers have been using a capable browser ever since Netscape 4 lost its crown."
So you're saying that MS should have spent all of the dev and test time rolling this out earlier even though most of their user base would have had to use the old interface? That doesn't seem like a very good use of resources.
IE 4 may support AJAX, but if you've ever tried to use OWA with IE 4 you don't get a very compelling experience. Certainly not one that would make your user base say "wow".
"Basically, what I'm asking is: Microsoft already did this years ago for Exchange, why did it take so many years (and GMail's launch) for their Hotmail department to follow suit? "
Simple, most users of OWA are corporate users. Those corporations that deploy OWA can expect their users to have a browser that can take advantage of OWA. You can't roll out a service to millions of home users until you know your customer base (or at least a good majority of them) has the tools to use the service. If you had RTFA you'd know that, from MS point of view, their customer base is just now at the point of being able to take advantage of AJAX.
Wonderful...I'll be by later to "borrow" your car when you're sleeping one night. I'll be sure to top of the gas tank for you so you won't have any "negative consequences whatsoever".
Slashdot Mirror
The movie studios hold the copyright and the distribution rights to their movies. CleanFlicks is essentially creating another version of the movie without the studios permission and generating a revenue stream from it. That's not right. How would the Mormon community feel if I made an "Edited to Make it More Appropriate" version of the Book of Mormon and started selling/renting out my version? What if I added in violence (not that there's not alredy enough) and made Jesus gay? (Or, maybe change the testimony of Joseph Smith so he starts out eating a peyote button to get his prophesy?) Think the Mormon churce would be OK with that? They should, right? After all, I'm only creating a version I think is more appropriate.
"Only if you're good looking. If you're ugly, you'll get charged with sexual harassment. If only I had a link to that SNL skit :)"
;)
It all depends on where you set the bar. There's always somebody uglier than you who needs some.
DOH! Need to look more closesly at which post I reply to...
Actually, you would need to consider the difference in food consumption between the Segway riders and a bike rider. Unless, of course, you believe the guys on the Segway didn't eat.. ;)
You caught the (not as rare as it should be) exception to rule...and I was wrong on the Windows trademark.
However, I could point out a few open source trademarks that also should be shunned in the same way: Red Hat(R), Fedora (R), GNU(R).
Others - Novell has: Ferret, Envoy. IBM has: Balance, Candle, Catapult, Current, Domino, Icing, Metaphor, etc.
Not excusing the lack of accurate information in my previous post - just pointing out that trademarking common words is something every corporation does and MS shouldn't be singled out for doing so.
Word, Excel, Windows... are not Microsoft trademarks. Microsfot Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Windows are Microsoft trademarks.
"2. Religion tells us how we should act."
Poppycock. Religous morals spring from already established social norms. Read "The Science of Good and Evil".
"Kudos to the funny comeback however everything about the human body is needed in order for us to survive except for the appendix it seems. We couldn't have one thing develop without having something else as well, which goes against evolution which implies gradual changes. We need all of our organs and all the capabilities that our cells have to differentiate, multiply, copy dna, etc. is all needed at the same time so gradual changes would not suffice for us to exist based solely on evolution."
Good point! After all, we can't survive without all of our limbs, eyes, lungs, kidneys, etc. Oh, wait, yes we can.
BTW - evolution isn't based on gradual changes. It's based on genetic mutations that can result in small or big changes. Those changes remain in the gene pool if they aid in the reproductive success of the species.
Also, I can't really understand you intelligent designers. You say life is too complex to have "just happened." Yet, you're happy to believe that your creator, with the power and complex knowledge necessary to create life, has always just existed...
I'm sure you and your Christie Brinkley hand-puppet get along famously thanks to what you've learned in the game.
"Just because someone/something doesn't often admit it's wrong doesn't mean they're right the rest of the time. Some of the people that were most wrong are those that will never retract or concede."
Take Bill O'Reilly for example...no, really, take him.
Honda, Toyota...lots of others. They are both losing money on every hybrid they sell. It's the cost of building a market. Microsoft losing money on Xbox hardware/games is the cost of entering a pretty mature market. Because they have other product lines that enable them to stay profitable as a whole doesn't make their actions bad.
What does that matter? What does their having money from other divisions to cover their losses in games have to do with the rightness or wrongness of their actions?
If a startup manages to get more VC money than their rivals are they evil for running at a loss just because they have more upfront money to cover operating expenses?
OK...It's the cost of establishing a position in the console gaming market. Their business practices aren't different from any of their competitors. It is ridiculous to portray them as doing something wrong here.
For any game publisher, on any platform, there's only a few games that are truly profitable and those cover the costs of publishing all of the other games in their list. Are all game publishers evil because they lose money entering new niches in the game market?
"I wasn't even born when the Copyright Act of 1978 was passed, and I wasn't old enough to vote when the 105th Congress (NET Act, Bono Act, DMCA) was elected. How can "we" be responsible?"
The "we" is the American public, of which you are a part.
"Where? If you suggest a web-based auction venue, does "0 results" mean anything to you?"
It sure does, it means you're SOL. Or, you could go and steal a copy. Better yet, why don't you go and steal a Van Gogh? He isn't making them anymore and I bet your same web-based auction venue has "0 results" as well - I guess that entitles you to a free one.
"It might be their intellectual property but it's my culture, dammit."
No it isn't - it's our culture. And "we" passed laws granting the protections Google seems bent on ignoring. If you don't like the laws vote for people who will change the law. I'm all for civil disobedience, but you have to be willing to pay the price for it until the laws are changed.
"If they won't keep it in print and sell me a copy, which I'm willing to pay for, then they should keep their mouths shut when I go and find one for myself."
If you want it bad enough to steal it, why not go and buy a used copy? I noticed that your HTTP link by your name goes to a software engineering company. Do you want your customers selling (or giving away) older versions of what you've created to each other because you've taken them off the market?
Your argument isn't entirely valid. The CDC reports that, at least in terms of deaths of children, the effect of DDT causing pre-term births and shorter durations of breast-feeding (babies don't breastfeed for as long on mothers with DDT levels caused by spraying) pretty much causes a zero sum gain. True, wiping out a good portion of the mosquitos may save some lives, but it is offset by the loss in life due to babies being born prematurely and more illness-related deaths caused by weaker immune systems. (Due to the breastfeeding issue explained above.) Those children will be even more susceptible to malaria.
I agree that there are always tradeoffs that have to be made when solving a problem. But attacking the disease seems be a better route for now. You'll never wipe out the mosquito, and to even try would mean dumping more and more DDT in to the environment. There are, probably, downsides to attacking the disease as well as you could cause it to mutate in to a more virulent form.
You should probably look at more sources than wikipedia... A quick search on the CDC site shows that DDT causes damage to the nervous system, liver, and causes more pre-term births to occur. It is NOT an innocuous chemical.
Instead of saying "Or should I say that there is more scientific evidence to use DDT vs not to use it.", you should say "based on my very limited knowledge (gained through a brief entry on wikipedia) DDT sounds great!"...
It may not make passports "magically" impossible to duplicate or forge, but it may raise the bar and make it a whole lot more difficult. It could be that we're too worried about security in the US, but assuming we're not, what do you suggest we do to increase our confidence that the people who are coming in and out of the country are who they say they are?
That's freakin' hilarious! Mod funny!
If you'd RTFA you'd understand that they were invited there to show techniques that hackers use so MS developers can have a better understanding of what to think about when they code. They weren't there to do a line-by-line security review.
It's funny how mis-information impacts the truth over time.
The only thing that was ever in dispute was whether or not the memo itself was legitimate, not whether the statements in the memo were accurate. No one has ever disputed the statements in the memo accurately depicted Bush's military record. They have, however, managed to distract lots of folks from the truth by focusing everyone's attention on the legitimacy of the source of the paper they were written on.
Yes, I do. MS is re-working lots of their Internet properties to make sure they work across platforms and browsers. MSN, for example, has a policy of avoiding ActiveX components and are re-designing their pages to ensure a more consistant experience for a broad range of users using Firefox and Opera.
"The fact is, you can use AJAX techniques in a completely backwards-compatible manner, so browsers that can handle it get the new interface, and browsers that can't get the traditional old Hotmail interface. Lots of people with older browsers simply isn't a factor.
Furthermore, it's not like there were a lack of people with browsers that could support AJAX. Internet Explorer 4 supports it! Practically speaking, the vast majority of web surfers have been using a capable browser ever since Netscape 4 lost its crown."
So you're saying that MS should have spent all of the dev and test time rolling this out earlier even though most of their user base would have had to use the old interface? That doesn't seem like a very good use of resources.
IE 4 may support AJAX, but if you've ever tried to use OWA with IE 4 you don't get a very compelling experience. Certainly not one that would make your user base say "wow".
"Basically, what I'm asking is: Microsoft already did this years ago for Exchange, why did it take so many years (and GMail's launch) for their Hotmail department to follow suit? "
Simple, most users of OWA are corporate users. Those corporations that deploy OWA can expect their users to have a browser that can take advantage of OWA. You can't roll out a service to millions of home users until you know your customer base (or at least a good majority of them) has the tools to use the service. If you had RTFA you'd know that, from MS point of view, their customer base is just now at the point of being able to take advantage of AJAX.
Wonderful...I'll be by later to "borrow" your car when you're sleeping one night. I'll be sure to top of the gas tank for you so you won't have any "negative consequences whatsoever".