My questions that I posted are hard to sidestep. Here they are: "Is copyright more important than plaigarism?" "What do you think would happen if copyright law no longer existed, but plaigarism laws did?"
It would be hard to just go off in some other direction with these. Then again, they may have experience in dodging the question asked.
Yes, you are correct Bluetooth has a very limited range. It is around 10 meters. The title "...Users to get Bluetooth Internet" is misleading and just plain stupid. There is no Bluetooth internet. Bluetooth is for close range wireless communication. Such as wireless mice, keyboards, home phones, remotes, headphones, cellphones connected to cars or earpieces, and various other devices. It creates a network between devices, not the internet. A device can on the other hand (like a cellphone) act as a gateway. The cellphone can connect to the internet and be Bluetooth enabled to allow nearby Bluetooth enabled devices to be connected to the internet. Ignore the stupidity of titles you find on/. because too often they are misleading.
Ever see the movie "Catch Me If You Can"? If not, I suggest you find out about the person the movie was based on and you'll see why your wrong. I will never believe that a person that has done bad things in the past will always be that kind of person (unless they are mentally ill).
""We do everything we feel is appropriate, within the law, in order to protect our copyrights." A spokeswoman for Universal Music said that the company "is engaging in legal technical measures.""
and if it isn't within the law, then they make it law.
I thought that might have been it, just was not sure. Thanks!
Not worth the price, unless want/need DX9 features
on
GeForce FX 5200 Reviewed
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Not really worth it. For just a little more you can buy a decent Geforce 4 4200/4400/4600 that runs better than this card. It only seems worth it if you want or need those DX9 features. Btw, I am selling my GF 4 4200 card. I am happy with my GF2 MX. I stopped playing games, no really, I did.
I understand how the old card trick using strings and pictures on two sides works, but how exactly does this work? I have some ideas on ways to do this, but I would like to know how they accomplished it. I always imagined using lasers to do this, by finding laser beams that reflect light in all directions when intersecting occurs. Does anyone know of any lasers/beams that cause refraction when intersecting? If those exist, then the only problem seems finding a way to move the lasers fast enough and correctly positioned to intersect.
This isn't a very new concept. Two examples that come to mind are Salon and Gamespy. If your not a member, then your forced to view a page (which is most likely fullscreen since that is how most of us use our browsers) for a few seconds before going to the actual news/preview/review/screenshot/etc. I know other sites have used this method of full screen same site ads before. So call it anything but new.
He did this because he was against war. That is much different than someone simply copying music. If you created a great work of art do you want money for it even if another gets all the credit, or the other way around? or why not both without limiting others from distributing your work? If your an artist, credit ir worth more. We should enforce plagiarism laws, but not fight fair use laws. There are bands that do well even though they openly allow and encourage copying.
"In what way does copyrigt give anyone ownership of your property or personal freedom?"
You misinterpreted his argument. Basically what he is saying is: Why do artists need to own and control an idea to create and/or share it in the first place? Which is a good argument because even without copyright law art, music, and writing will still be produced. Why would people stop playing their guitar and sharing their songs because they can't control it? As lame as posers or copycats are, they tend to increase the popularity of the original. For some strange reason, the original artist/author is always scared of these copycats instead of fearing plagiarism (which is the real threat).
I don't feel like arguing against your other statements; too much to type and I have other posts to reply to. It is obvious you didn't read about the other side of intellectual property. I suggest doing a search for "Brian Martin Information Liberation" and if you can, find "Owning the Future" a book about IP. If you have more time and wish to learn more then do some more research, there is plenty out there. You could just ignore the other side of the argument altogether, but that would be ignorant.
Copyright is not a protection against plagiarism. What if Michael Jackson said the music that John Lennon wrote were actually his music? There is a clear distinction between who claims credit and who claims copyright. That is just another problem with the copyright system. It doesn't do a good job of protecting against plagiarism, instead it attempts to protect assets. Which I must add, it protects the wealthy very well, while doing a poor job of protecting smaller artists. That is a fact, no matter what it theoretically was meant to do.
I agree. and for those who don't, your choice. Just don't say anything you can't back up, because I will surely be there to attack every defense you have for IP with evidence/support/sources/history/etc.
The original poster stated it well. I have to disagree with your statements.
Ignoring the system is not bad. The bad thing is when people ignore plaigarism. There needs to be more focus towards credibility and plaigarism, NOT ownership or control. I find your sentence "making sure that creative people get some recompense for being creative" amusing. So without this "recompense" they would not be creative? Are you creative? Do you ask to be paid for it? Let me ask you a few more questions. Why did those that created works of art before the copyright system do what they did? What is art? is it a product? an expression? an idea? Does copyright guarantee fair compensation? Does copyright promote more works?
Ideas are far different from physical items. To think about them in the same manner would lead to flaws. The idea of copyright is itself flawed. I highly recommend you do some reading on the subject before posting comments.
Economically it is not a good idea for a developing country to institute patents. This seriously hinders progress. As it already does this in counties like the U.S. it is even worse for those countries not at any level to compete. Imagine what the U.S. and other countries seem like to these little guys. It would seem that they just see everyone is trying to steal from them. Plus, I've said it once and I'll say it many times again, before it finally goes away: Patents are one of mans worst ideas which intention has been skewed into a rent seeking behavior that hinders progress and creates an unequal playing field in the world of competition. Patents go against capitalism. Capitalism encourages competition, patents discourage it. Should we allow such insanity to continue because we think that patents help the small researcher or inventor? Do some research and you will see all those assumptions and myths about patents and how they are intended to protect the little guy and help him make money does in fact little to this extent.
Damn! I posted that idea just a minute ago. Then again, just vacuum the fans from the outside. I doubt the suction would be powerful enough to cause damage from there.
SCO is kind of like Microsoft. "CRN: What are you trying to do? Some say you are trying to compete against Linux by destroying it.
McBride: We will use our best efforts to protect our source code " That is some really scary stuff. He flat out wants to destroy Linux.
Througout the entire interview it is apparent, the guy is full of BS. I'm sick of the entire industry fighting over IP. The entire subject of IP is BS. If IP was out of the picture, then quality service would be priority, not who thought up an idea first. Linux is not UNIX. It was based on it, and it is compatible in many respects to it. In the end, it was written from scratch. Whether there is something within Linux now that came from them, that isn't important. The important thing is that we need to stop this IP BS. Linux has givin the IT industry something it needs. The open source philosophy is something better, stronger, and more important than anything any commercial entity can throw at us (or sell for that matter). Commercializing everything and breaking it up into small fragments where one owns this another owns that and then all the lawyers jump in to the join the big cock fight orgy only ruins the industry. It never ceases to amaze me how people hurt themselves, from smoking cigarettes to ownership of ideas. Will people ever wake up and smell the ethics?
Slashdot Mirror
My questions that I posted are hard to sidestep.
Here they are:
"Is copyright more important than plaigarism?"
"What do you think would happen if copyright law no longer existed, but plaigarism laws did?"
It would be hard to just go off in some other direction with these. Then again, they may have experience in dodging the question asked.
Yes, you are correct Bluetooth has a very limited range. It is around 10 meters. The title "...Users to get Bluetooth Internet" is misleading and just plain stupid. There is no Bluetooth internet. Bluetooth is for close range wireless communication. Such as wireless mice, keyboards, home phones, remotes, headphones, cellphones connected to cars or earpieces, and various other devices. It creates a network between devices, not the internet. A device can on the other hand (like a cellphone) act as a gateway. The cellphone can connect to the internet and be Bluetooth enabled to allow nearby Bluetooth enabled devices to be connected to the internet. Ignore the stupidity of titles you find on /. because too often they are misleading.
First thing I thought when I saw the new bill was that it looked like a European currency bill. Anyone else see the resemblence?
My logic isn't to hire criminals, but to understand that once a criminal not always a criminal.
Ever see the movie "Catch Me If You Can"? If not, I suggest you find out about the person the movie was based on and you'll see why your wrong. I will never believe that a person that has done bad things in the past will always be that kind of person (unless they are mentally ill).
Btw, the IP address to that one military satellitwe, the one armed with nuclear missiles, yea, that one. The IP address is 127.1.34.46 Have fun!
""We do everything we feel is appropriate, within the law, in order to protect our copyrights." A spokeswoman for Universal Music said that the company "is engaging in legal technical measures.""
and if it isn't within the law, then they make it law.
E-mail me an offer. I live in St. Petersburg, FL.
I thought that might have been it, just was not sure. Thanks!
Not really worth it. For just a little more you can buy a decent Geforce 4 4200/4400/4600 that runs better than this card. It only seems worth it if you want or need those DX9 features.
Btw, I am selling my GF 4 4200 card. I am happy with my GF2 MX. I stopped playing games, no really, I did.
I understand how the old card trick using strings and pictures on two sides works, but how exactly does this work?
I have some ideas on ways to do this, but I would like to know how they accomplished it.
I always imagined using lasers to do this, by finding laser beams that reflect light in all directions when intersecting occurs. Does anyone know of any lasers/beams that cause refraction when intersecting? If those exist, then the only problem seems finding a way to move the lasers fast enough and correctly positioned to intersect.
"I've never even heard of this sort of pop-up before"
You should try viagra.
This isn't a very new concept.
Two examples that come to mind are Salon and Gamespy.
If your not a member, then your forced to view a page (which is most likely fullscreen since that is how most of us use our browsers) for a few seconds before going to the actual news/preview/review/screenshot/etc.
I know other sites have used this method of full screen same site ads before. So call it anything but new.
That would be true if.../ 98il/i l03.html
First read this and you'll see.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs
He did this because he was against war. That is much different than someone simply copying music. If you created a great work of art do you want money for it even if another gets all the credit, or the other way around? or why not both without limiting others from distributing your work? If your an artist, credit ir worth more. We should enforce plagiarism laws, but not fight fair use laws. There are bands that do well even though they openly allow and encourage copying.
"In what way does copyrigt give anyone ownership of your property or personal freedom?"
You misinterpreted his argument. Basically what he is saying is: Why do artists need to own and control an idea to create and/or share it in the first place? Which is a good argument because even without copyright law art, music, and writing will still be produced. Why would people stop playing their guitar and sharing their songs because they can't control it? As lame as posers or copycats are, they tend to increase the popularity of the original. For some strange reason, the original artist/author is always scared of these copycats instead of fearing plagiarism (which is the real threat).
I don't feel like arguing against your other statements; too much to type and I have other posts to reply to. It is obvious you didn't read about the other side of intellectual property. I suggest doing a search for "Brian Martin Information Liberation" and if you can, find "Owning the Future" a book about IP.
If you have more time and wish to learn more then do some more research, there is plenty out there. You could just ignore the other side of the argument altogether, but that would be ignorant.
Copyright is not a protection against plagiarism. What if Michael Jackson said the music that John Lennon wrote were actually his music? There is a clear distinction between who claims credit and who claims copyright. That is just another problem with the copyright system. It doesn't do a good job of protecting against plagiarism, instead it attempts to protect assets. Which I must add, it protects the wealthy very well, while doing a poor job of protecting smaller artists. That is a fact, no matter what it theoretically was meant to do.
I agree.
and for those who don't, your choice. Just don't say anything you can't back up, because I will surely be there to attack every defense you have for IP with evidence/support/sources/history/etc.
The original poster stated it well. I have to disagree with your statements.
Ignoring the system is not bad. The bad thing is when people ignore plaigarism. There needs to be more focus towards credibility and plaigarism, NOT ownership or control.
I find your sentence "making sure that creative people get some recompense for being creative" amusing. So without this "recompense" they would not be creative? Are you creative? Do you ask to be paid for it?
Let me ask you a few more questions.
Why did those that created works of art before the copyright system do what they did?
What is art? is it a product? an expression? an idea?
Does copyright guarantee fair compensation?
Does copyright promote more works?
Ideas are far different from physical items. To think about them in the same manner would lead to flaws. The idea of copyright is itself flawed. I highly recommend you do some reading on the subject before posting comments.
Funny, I too gave a speech on the RIAA for my speech communication class.
Economically it is not a good idea for a developing country to institute patents. This seriously hinders progress. As it already does this in counties like the U.S. it is even worse for those countries not at any level to compete. Imagine what the U.S. and other countries seem like to these little guys. It would seem that they just see everyone is trying to steal from them. Plus, I've said it once and I'll say it many times again, before it finally goes away: Patents are one of mans worst ideas which intention has been skewed into a rent seeking behavior that hinders progress and creates an unequal playing field in the world of competition. Patents go against capitalism. Capitalism encourages competition, patents discourage it. Should we allow such insanity to continue because we think that patents help the small researcher or inventor? Do some research and you will see all those assumptions and myths about patents and how they are intended to protect the little guy and help him make money does in fact little to this extent.
Damn! I posted that idea just a minute ago. Then again, just vacuum the fans from the outside. I doubt the suction would be powerful enough to cause damage from there.
Under $500, takes only a few seconds per machine, and you probably have one laying around: a vacuum.
Air filtration is good and all, but don't rule out the old vacuum. Although I would recommend an industrial strength one or a shop vacuum.
*sarcasm*
You have one near your computer and it still collects a lot of dust? and yet you claim "ionic breeze" collects a lot of it.
*sarcasm*
SCO is kind of like Microsoft.
"CRN: What are you trying to do? Some say you are trying to compete against Linux by destroying it.
McBride: We will use our best efforts to protect our source code
"
That is some really scary stuff. He flat out wants to destroy Linux.
Througout the entire interview it is apparent, the guy is full of BS. I'm sick of the entire industry fighting over IP. The entire subject of IP is BS. If IP was out of the picture, then quality service would be priority, not who thought up an idea first. Linux is not UNIX. It was based on it, and it is compatible in many respects to it. In the end, it was written from scratch. Whether there is something within Linux now that came from them, that isn't important. The important thing is that we need to stop this IP BS. Linux has givin the IT industry something it needs. The open source philosophy is something better, stronger, and more important than anything any commercial entity can throw at us (or sell for that matter). Commercializing everything and breaking it up into small fragments where one owns this another owns that and then all the lawyers jump in to the join the big cock fight orgy only ruins the industry. It never ceases to amaze me how people hurt themselves, from smoking cigarettes to ownership of ideas. Will people ever wake up and smell the ethics?