A couple weeks ago, Congress decided that the Total Information Awareness program could not operate against US citizens.
Today? We are getting a "security" implementation that(purportedly) keeps the information it collects for 50 years. This has been disputed, by the Transportation Department, but it appeared in print, and the retraction was not.
The game is a sequel. It suffers the same problems that most sequels suffer. What made the original popular was it's originality. Sequels suck because they try to leech off from the originality of the original.
That said. How the hell does one game make a 20 year franchise? Did Dragon's Lair spawn several sequels? If not, then it's a 20 year late sequel.
Notice the past tense in "ran"... If I'm paying for hosting, it better damn well include CGI. Otherwise, it's like renting a house that doesn't include windows, and closets, yeah, you can live without them, but would you really want to?
No, it goes against the Geneva Convention to use rocket launchers specifically for the use of attacking people.
You can use them on materiel, like bunkers, tanks, buildings, clothing. The Geneva convention doesn't specifically rule out the use of rocket propelled weaponry against clothing that is currently occupied either.
So, as long as you don't hit the skin, you're fine.
You are aware that there is no legal infrastructure to "commit" your works to the Public Domain? This means that your descendants can let your copyright submarine, and when they decide to, they can enforce it.
This means, that someone could innocuously use your copyrighted work, and be sued into oblivion by your descendants.
That would be counter to the aims of the companies though, especially if they have stock holders... if they were to cooperate, then they'd be opening themselves up to a suit by their stock-holders for not acting in their best interests.
Further, one company would be easier for (MSFT|SUN|APPLE|$Proprietary_Software_Production_C o_Bent_On_World_Domination) to smite (TM).
Basically if you want a unified easy to use distribution, you're better off making your own (non-commercial distribution), and hoping the commercial distributions standardize off you.
If Microsoft doesn't own the patents on DRM, and will have to pay royalties to include it, what incentive will they have to include it in their operating systems?
Why does there have to be only two options? Shouldn't those who create something have the ability to gain from it, as well as enrich the world?
Copyright itself isn't the problem, the problem is the -term- of copyright, and perhaps the ability of corporations to own copyrights, but whatever.
There are always more than two options. If you simplistically reduce a complex problem to a binary problem, you miss out on a lot of good solutions.
Its not very logical to try to turn bits of information into a product,
Business isn't about logic, it is about profit.
it doenst benifit the majority of the people in this world.
This is going to sound very harsh, but I don't owe anyone in the world anything. It is not our responsibility to give them benefit. Certainly it is an honourable task to attempt to give them benefit, but you cannot fault someone for failing in responsibilities that are not their own.
That said, intellectual property is meant to be a compromise between the interests of the innovator and the public. The system is broken, I admit, but it doesn't mean that the system is a poor system.
People in africa cannot buy medicinee[sic] because of this. People in afganastan cannot get educated because of patents on books.
Patents do not prevent people from buying medicine, and a product patented in the US is -not- patented in other countries, unless they have signed a treaty to honour each other's patents.
Books are copyrighted, not patented, just like everything anyone (in the US at least) writes.
People in the USA cannot learn programming or be productive in todays society because of patents.
No, people cannot learn to program because they don't take the time to learn to program. You can program something that makes use of a software patent with no fear of reprisal so long as you do not distribute the program with the peices that make use of the patent.
That is the purpose of patents, to give a period of "profitability" to the innovator, while giving society as a whole the benefit of the innovation.
I benifit more from Open Source than I do from closed source because I have no money.
You do realise that the only reason Open Source software exists as it does is because of the copyright system that you despise. Without copyright there would be -no- way to prevent a malicious person or organisation from taking the fruits of the OS software, and including it in their proprietary software.
I benifit more from file sharing because if there were no napsters and gnutellas of the world I simply wouldnt have the money to listen to music AT ALL, PERIOD.
Shouldn't the musicians whose copyright you violate deserve some benefit also? You can't say you don't owe them anything, because you use their services. It is not their responsibility to provide you with free music.
I'm going to make a base assumption, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're the type of person who would give your services freely to just anyone. If (assuming you have a job or ever get one) your boss asked you to work for free, would you?
After all, think of the benefit it would be to him.
He's really interested in the project, I had him trying to use Debian for a while, but he had an ancient Alliance something or another video card and could never get X working, last I heard, he was going to try MDK.
I have a friend who works for ING Bank, and apparently they are putting together a group to test the feasibility of Linux for their day-to-day. He's complaining because they chose people he considers inferiour, and is trying to get in the project...
Kinda amusing, considering he's a card-holding MSCE.
Redistribution rights are commonly held to be reproduction rights, or--as it was before the digital computers--reprinting rights, not first sale doctrine...
Assuming you are in the United States, your work is still covered under US Copyright law. Just because you are giving them access to the source code, does not give them redistribution rights, or the right to make a derivative without expressed permission.
So, all you should need is an (C) Your Co. All Rights Reserved.
If that doesn't work, a handy lawsuit works wonders.
Well, now that the naming conventions of the internet are in the hands of big business, and there is no recourse us 'ordinary' users can use to fight it, does this mean that we have to go offline and go outside?
It's cold out there.
Granted, it just got a whole lot colder in here. It is too bad that an alternate registry cannot gain enough momentum to actually compete versus ICANN.
So long.free, we'll miss you. Certainly.regime won't be so bad, it will be 'efficient', and 'autonomous'. It's quite ironic that they held the meeting in China.
Slashdot Mirror
They want to make sure you're going to be contributing to the economy of the USA while you're traveling abroad within our Great Borders.
*cough*
A couple weeks ago, Congress decided that the Total Information Awareness program could not operate against US citizens.
Today? We are getting a "security" implementation that(purportedly) keeps the information it collects for 50 years. This has been disputed, by the Transportation Department, but it appeared in print, and the retraction was not.
Sad, sad.
You had TAPE?! I had to make do with paste... which was fortuitous, because it could double as a tasty-tasty buritto substitute.
You had tetris?! I had to insert 28 punch-cards, for nothing! And it had to be done, too! You know what! We liked it!
Durned-kids these days.
It makes a really great prop for my couch... I really needed to take those videos back to Blockbuster.
They have to go after it, because it is an infringing use of their Trademark. Otherwise, they lose the trademark.
Granted, it will probably still be used, like "Xerox" for making copies, but it is not in Google's best interests to encourage it.
Perhaps because the Bell's infrastructure was paid for by the public, not by the Bells?
I haven't ever actually done anything with it that is useful though (I think it's part of the license...)
But it is fun none-the-less.
The game is a sequel. It suffers the same problems that most sequels suffer. What made the original popular was it's originality. Sequels suck because they try to leech off from the originality of the original.
That said. How the hell does one game make a 20 year franchise? Did Dragon's Lair spawn several sequels? If not, then it's a 20 year late sequel.
Real franchises spawn fun sequels...
Notice the past tense in "ran"... If I'm paying for hosting, it better damn well include CGI. Otherwise, it's like renting a house that doesn't include windows, and closets, yeah, you can live without them, but would you really want to?
No, it goes against the Geneva Convention to use rocket launchers specifically for the use of attacking people.
You can use them on materiel, like bunkers, tanks, buildings, clothing. The Geneva convention doesn't specifically rule out the use of rocket propelled weaponry against clothing that is currently occupied either.
So, as long as you don't hit the skin, you're fine.
You are aware that there is no legal infrastructure to "commit" your works to the Public Domain? This means that your descendants can let your copyright submarine, and when they decide to, they can enforce it.
This means, that someone could innocuously use your copyrighted work, and be sued into oblivion by your descendants.
Yeah, great idea, smart guy.
That would be counter to the aims of the companies though, especially if they have stock holders... if they were to cooperate, then they'd be opening themselves up to a suit by their stock-holders for not acting in their best interests.
C o_Bent_On_World_Domination) to smite (TM).
Further, one company would be easier for (MSFT|SUN|APPLE|$Proprietary_Software_Production_
Basically if you want a unified easy to use distribution, you're better off making your own (non-commercial distribution), and hoping the commercial distributions standardize off you.
Offtopic: Just how bad will it look on RIAA's system administratiors resimay to have worked there? Maybe that's the reason they still work there?
What excessive heat? I have three computers in the Master bedroom and I still have to sleep wrapped around the computers. It's fucking Cold!
I mean... I sleep with lots of blankets... really...
There were theories of evolution before Darwin... Larmarck had one, not a very good one, but he had one.
You could keep it in England... they seem like the kind of people who would keep it safe for you, they might even clean it...
If Microsoft doesn't own the patents on DRM, and will have to pay royalties to include it, what incentive will they have to include it in their operating systems?
Theres two options.
Why does there have to be only two options? Shouldn't those who create something have the ability to gain from it, as well as enrich the world?
Copyright itself isn't the problem, the problem is the -term- of copyright, and perhaps the ability of corporations to own copyrights, but whatever.
There are always more than two options. If you simplistically reduce a complex problem to a binary problem, you miss out on a lot of good solutions.
Its not very logical to try to turn bits of information into a product,
Business isn't about logic, it is about profit.
it doenst benifit the majority of the people in this world.
This is going to sound very harsh, but I don't owe anyone in the world anything. It is not our responsibility to give them benefit. Certainly it is an honourable task to attempt to give them benefit, but you cannot fault someone for failing in responsibilities that are not their own.
That said, intellectual property is meant to be a compromise between the interests of the innovator and the public. The system is broken, I admit, but it doesn't mean that the system is a poor system.
People in africa cannot buy medicinee[sic] because of this. People in afganastan cannot get educated because of patents on books.
Patents do not prevent people from buying medicine, and a product patented in the US is -not- patented in other countries, unless they have signed a treaty to honour each other's patents.
Books are copyrighted, not patented, just like everything anyone (in the US at least) writes.
People in the USA cannot learn programming or be productive in todays society because of patents.
No, people cannot learn to program because they don't take the time to learn to program. You can program something that makes use of a software patent with no fear of reprisal so long as you do not distribute the program with the peices that make use of the patent.
That is the purpose of patents, to give a period of "profitability" to the innovator, while giving society as a whole the benefit of the innovation.
I benifit more from Open Source than I do from closed source because I have no money.
You do realise that the only reason Open Source software exists as it does is because of the copyright system that you despise. Without copyright there would be -no- way to prevent a malicious person or organisation from taking the fruits of the OS software, and including it in their proprietary software.
I benifit more from file sharing because if there were no napsters and gnutellas of the world I simply wouldnt have the money to listen to music AT ALL, PERIOD.
Shouldn't the musicians whose copyright you violate deserve some benefit also? You can't say you don't owe them anything, because you use their services. It is not their responsibility to provide you with free music.
I'm going to make a base assumption, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're the type of person who would give your services freely to just anyone. If (assuming you have a job or ever get one) your boss asked you to work for free, would you?
After all, think of the benefit it would be to him.
He's really interested in the project, I had him trying to use Debian for a while, but he had an ancient Alliance something or another video card and could never get X working, last I heard, he was going to try MDK.
I have a friend who works for ING Bank, and apparently they are putting together a group to test the feasibility of Linux for their day-to-day. He's complaining because they chose people he considers inferiour, and is trying to get in the project...
Kinda amusing, considering he's a card-holding MSCE.
I stand corrected then, thanks for the clarification.
Redistribution rights are commonly held to be reproduction rights, or--as it was before the digital computers--reprinting rights, not first sale doctrine...
Assuming you are in the United States, your work is still covered under US Copyright law. Just because you are giving them access to the source code, does not give them redistribution rights, or the right to make a derivative without expressed permission.
So, all you should need is an (C) Your Co.
All Rights Reserved.
If that doesn't work, a handy lawsuit works wonders.
Well, now that the naming conventions of the internet are in the hands of big business, and there is no recourse us 'ordinary' users can use to fight it, does this mean that we have to go offline and go outside?
.free, we'll miss you. Certainly .regime won't be so bad, it will be 'efficient', and 'autonomous'. It's quite ironic that they held the meeting in China.
It's cold out there.
Granted, it just got a whole lot colder in here. It is too bad that an alternate registry cannot gain enough momentum to actually compete versus ICANN.
So long