One wonders whether a compromise would work -- identity can be revealed via subpoena to the judge, who withholds the actual identity and merely confirms or denies relevance (for instance, whether or not the person has, in fact, signed an NDA) unless and until the case is decided in favor of the plaintiffs?
I like that idea... that would be a very good compromise - so long as it is not abused by the judge, which would have been the case in one of the situations quoted in some of the other posts. So, sadly, that brings us to another issue in light of what seems to be an excellent compromise. Perhaps a seprate judge from the case could be used, or a separate but related agency set up or assigned to perform such a task? I am definitely not a lawyer ( and I've never played one on TV ), but I'd like to hear what one would say about your idea.
I think you might be using a bit too much codeine, though. what the hell sort of flamebait response was that? its not even logical. I, for one, agree with musiholic's stance. It is simple - parents need to be more supervisory, they need to take a more active role in their chilren's lives. As for you comment on drinking drano, its about education and common sense prevention - which is not at all the same as censorship. Stop trying to cloud the issue.
I think you just wrote out what I was feeling - on the nose.
This whole control business is indeed getting out of hand. It definitely has to do with a trend of leaning away from democracy (which the US technically is not to begin with - we're close) and leaning towrds oligarchy - with the control being held by corporations. Perhaps I'm being a bit gloomy with that statement, and maybea bit paranoid, but I don't think I'm too far off.
I just wish there was a more effective way of trying to promote level-headed thinking, thinking about the "big-picture", rather than freaking out over control/protection issues. These companies need to try to find out why they think there's a need for this style of copy-protection - and fix that problem instead of adding in the protection. Why do people pirate software? Why do people download songs from Napster? Why do friends swap copies of games every now and then? Is it because we are "evil people, bent on subverting the rights of a company to make a profit"? I don't think so.
I'll leave this post at this. Just trying to feel out how others feel about this.
ummm... I know, I know - I've heard it before "Don't feed the trolls...", and yes, I said a few things the other day regarding said/.er's post, but really... what is this?
Nice lesson on Japanese culture/economics. It also seems that several people disagree with your statements. I asked one of my co-workers to read your post, as she is a native of Japan, and she simply rolled her eyes. That said enough to me, anyway.
I'm really not trying to further incite an already ongoing flame war against Heidi, but what exactly was the point of your post? It really had very little to do with the topic on hand.
At least we both are addicted to Diablo II, and we've sworn not to even touch Everquest. The danger lies in that I have a budget set aside for Linux games (yeah, yeah, I know, fiancial planning and all that crap), and I've been waiting on Tribes, and now this - man, I'm doomed!
on-line, any-time courts... sounds pretty cool, if it works. Really, I hope that it does, and that they are able to extend it beyond just technology cases - htat would make it much more useful and flexible - which I think the courts need.
This one, I shall definitely watch - if it succeeds, this will be cool. If it fails - I hope that the concept isn't abandoned. At least Maryland is planning somethings similar as well.
I'll look for it. There had been some really wild predictions that the fullerenes might be able to superconduct, due to the way the carbon's are connected, but no one had been able to get it to happen. If it is still just a prediction, then there's still nothing new. I still like the fullerene tube transport concept - the ability to move really small things around with almost no friction. I've gotta find that article, it was cool.
Publicity does not mean anything. It simply means that the media caught wind and thought it was cool.
The real dirt here wasn't buckyballs, as they have very limited usage. Fullerene tubes were the amazing part - the prospect they hold is impressive. Also, how much have we heard about buckyballs/fullerenes lately? Very little. Yeah, the research is still on going, but I've not seen anything profound come out of quite yet.
I apologize for posting too hastiliy - I'm in the middle of an experiment and only have a few minutes before running in and out of the lab.
well, really, the buckyballs themselves were not the really blazingly important bit - the fullerene tubes were the real profound part. Buckyballs are cool, but limited in what they can really do. Fullerene tubes can have a profound effect if we can figure out how to utilize them. I've honestly not done a fullerene research in about 5 years, so I don't know if anything has come about from the research.
I just felt that it was obvious from the quote that buckyballs were picked because it sounded cool. Perhaps I'm mistaken, in which, I apologise.
what?? Buckyballs occur in nature. They've been readily available in fulgurites formed when lightning strikes the ground. C60 and C70 buckyballs are naturally occuring. We then figured out how to manufacture them. There was no amazing discovery there, just understanding what happens to carbon when it is temporarily turned to plasma.
If you're gonna troll, at least try to have a better grasp on what your rambling about. Don't give bad examples when there are chemists lurking about.
Yeah, ok, nice. Someone has some lovely theory. No, I'm not going to go check it out... it basically sounds like sience fiction. If I want to read Sci-Fi, I know where to find it.
On to my point... why do people just assume that other life would be anything even remotely close to what we are? By attempting to group "lifeforms" into pre-set "civilizations", it shows that the author is already applying our standards to others. What if an alien civilization is remotely removed from anything we could ever comprehend, that we'll never even see it, because we don't know to look for it? Who says whether or not they are "advanced"... because that is again applying our standards. I'm probably being really vague, so I apologize. But reading this seemed to flip a switch - especially after reading some of the other comments that completely help to refute this Kardashev guy.
Oh, well. There you have it, not quite my 2 cents, but it is at least the lint from my pocket.
sadly, I have done that and got BURNED. I wish there had been a better contract put in place so I could go after the previous owners and hold them liable for all the crap they pulled inside the house. Had I known then what I know now, I'd have bouth the house for about $10,000 less, or had them fix all the crap we've found.
How does this relate: we don't know the conditions a recording contract - but when it comes to artistic license, why is it that the label should have the "authority" to decide what the public may or may not like/buy. There are a lot of Chicago fans... they would have loved the album - it kinda reflected on the early days of high creativity and social awareness. But the label felt that it just wouldn't produce the "hits"... seems to me that most of the really memorable, long lasting songs were not number ones. A lot of the most critically acclaimed music never charted at all.
Perhaps its just my attitude towards it, but this seems like a sad battle between aesthetics and economics - and there seems to be little room for compromise.
I know that there is a differnce between claiming something as a trademark using TM, vs. having a "regfistered trademark", being our buddy, the cirle-R.
Any lawyers, law students, etc. help with this... people tent to forget that TM and R are not the same.
for example: not that everyone is a big Chicago fan, but they produced an album, tentatively titled something like "Stone of Sysiphus" (sic.)... the label decided that they did not like the band's decision to return to rock from adult contemporary, so the label is sitting on the record. I've heard a song or two that would be from it live, and the songs kick ass. Would it be top-40... no. Which is why the record will sadly never see the light of day.
Is that fair to the artists who conceived the album, wrote the songs, performed the songs, etc??? I think not.
Maybe Congress should be looking at a way to allow artists to keep the rights to their music instead?
Damn good point. As a musician, I loathe the thought of not being the "owner" of my own work. That sucks, plain and simple. It is also probaly one of the reasons why I refuse to shop my songs to any record labels. Perhaps I'll never be a "superstar", but at least I'll have respect for myself.
I always wanted to see A/UX, but I never got the opportunity...
I think that I agree with you... I really want to see OSX (of course, I'll have to get a new system - all I've got are too old), and I really look forward to what it will be able to do - perform and allow me to perform.
and, yes, I know, don't feed the trolls, but really, just what is this?
What is Apple's market share? Who are their core users? What "evil empire" handed them a big chunk of cash a few years ago?
I'd really like to hear some elaboration on just how you came up with this beautiful fantasy theory.
don't get me wrong, I've got macs (from an SE to an old powerbook, to a PPC601/G3 mutant box), I love my macs. My G3 runs MkLinux, too. But as far as Apple becoming the next evil empire, well, they missed that boat a while back, and they know it.
Well, I agree with you. The "sheep" comment is generally issued towards the "unenlightened", mind you - not my terms, but terms I've seen used. They may be poingant - but that's the point.
Flat out - I buy CD's. I don't use Napster. Why? Though the RIAA is a political machine, I don't feel they truly represent the artists. If by buying a CD I am still supporting the artists, then that's what I'll do. If the artists want to distribute their music for free, then I'll take it. I am a musician. I'd love to get my music out and be heard. I understand what it takes. I've had the pleasure of being able to know professionals - in the jazz field. I very badly want to see a "viable business model for the artists". I'd love to see the record companies fade into a niche of cheesey pop with real music by real musicians coming from their own realm - not powered by the almighty marketing buck.
You've got to look at this from a wider angle - we're not the sheep. We've got reasons why we do what we do. We don't just run amok without thought. Look at our posts, you have a rationale as to why you continue to buy CD's. So do I, and it focuses around a "higher moral" kinda thing (hell, its late, I'm tired, and rhetoric is failiing me here). But what about some kid down the street who just bought the latest Backstreet Boys release... did they have some moralistic, cognitive rationale as to why they bought it, or do they not care?
Take exception to being called a sheep. I wasn't referring to you, you are part of the exception. Stay that way. It's where we need to be.
not only do I have to worry about my son dating (ok, so he's only 6 months old... but I swear he has a girlfriend at daycare...), but now I have to worry about my computer running off to Vegas to get hitched... yeesh.
I am really torn by that notion. I like the thought of having legally protected e-mail. I don't like the thought of giving that power to the feds. There are too many pro's and con's, and I don't know enough to like it either way. So far, status quo wins... but there has got to be something better.
I'm not so sure. You forget that there are a lot of people who don't care about Napster, won't care about the alternatives, and will just keep on buying CD's. Hate to say it, but I think those people might be in the majority. I've seen them referred to as "sheep". Not everyone cares, nor will they care. Painfully, it all comes down to marketing - and who has the money.
It is great to be ideallistic. I try - and I know its not easy. Its especially hard to convince others. We might have all the greatest reasons to boycot RIAA sanctioned music - but that won't stop most from buying anyway. They just want the music - they don't care about the political/economic situations. And those same people simply see Napster - and likewise all alternatives/equivalents - as piracy and something to avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
I like that idea... that would be a very good compromise - so long as it is not abused by the judge, which would have been the case in one of the situations quoted in some of the other posts. So, sadly, that brings us to another issue in light of what seems to be an excellent compromise. Perhaps a seprate judge from the case could be used, or a separate but related agency set up or assigned to perform such a task? I am definitely not a lawyer ( and I've never played one on TV ), but I'd like to hear what one would say about your idea.
I think you just wrote out what I was feeling - on the nose.
This whole control business is indeed getting out of hand. It definitely has to do with a trend of leaning away from democracy (which the US technically is not to begin with - we're close) and leaning towrds oligarchy - with the control being held by corporations. Perhaps I'm being a bit gloomy with that statement, and maybea bit paranoid, but I don't think I'm too far off.
I just wish there was a more effective way of trying to promote level-headed thinking, thinking about the "big-picture", rather than freaking out over control/protection issues. These companies need to try to find out why they think there's a need for this style of copy-protection - and fix that problem instead of adding in the protection. Why do people pirate software? Why do people download songs from Napster? Why do friends swap copies of games every now and then? Is it because we are "evil people, bent on subverting the rights of a company to make a profit"? I don't think so.
I'll leave this post at this. Just trying to feel out how others feel about this.
Nice lesson on Japanese culture/economics. It also seems that several people disagree with your statements. I asked one of my co-workers to read your post, as she is a native of Japan, and she simply rolled her eyes. That said enough to me, anyway.
I'm really not trying to further incite an already ongoing flame war against Heidi, but what exactly was the point of your post? It really had very little to do with the topic on hand.
yeah, I didn't think so either, but I can dream, can't I?
At least we both are addicted to Diablo II, and we've sworn not to even touch Everquest. The danger lies in that I have a budget set aside for Linux games (yeah, yeah, I know, fiancial planning and all that crap), and I've been waiting on Tribes, and now this - man, I'm doomed!
This one, I shall definitely watch - if it succeeds, this will be cool. If it fails - I hope that the concept isn't abandoned. At least Maryland is planning somethings similar as well.
The real dirt here wasn't buckyballs, as they have very limited usage. Fullerene tubes were the amazing part - the prospect they hold is impressive. Also, how much have we heard about buckyballs/fullerenes lately? Very little. Yeah, the research is still on going, but I've not seen anything profound come out of quite yet.
I apologize for posting too hastiliy - I'm in the middle of an experiment and only have a few minutes before running in and out of the lab.
I just felt that it was obvious from the quote that buckyballs were picked because it sounded cool. Perhaps I'm mistaken, in which, I apologise.
If you're gonna troll, at least try to have a better grasp on what your rambling about. Don't give bad examples when there are chemists lurking about.
On to my point... why do people just assume that other life would be anything even remotely close to what we are? By attempting to group "lifeforms" into pre-set "civilizations", it shows that the author is already applying our standards to others. What if an alien civilization is remotely removed from anything we could ever comprehend, that we'll never even see it, because we don't know to look for it? Who says whether or not they are "advanced"... because that is again applying our standards. I'm probably being really vague, so I apologize. But reading this seemed to flip a switch - especially after reading some of the other comments that completely help to refute this Kardashev guy.
Oh, well. There you have it, not quite my 2 cents, but it is at least the lint from my pocket.
sadly, I have done that and got BURNED. I wish there had been a better contract put in place so I could go after the previous owners and hold them liable for all the crap they pulled inside the house. Had I known then what I know now, I'd have bouth the house for about $10,000 less, or had them fix all the crap we've found.
How does this relate: we don't know the conditions a recording contract - but when it comes to artistic license, why is it that the label should have the "authority" to decide what the public may or may not like/buy. There are a lot of Chicago fans... they would have loved the album - it kinda reflected on the early days of high creativity and social awareness. But the label felt that it just wouldn't produce the "hits"... seems to me that most of the really memorable, long lasting songs were not number ones. A lot of the most critically acclaimed music never charted at all.
Perhaps its just my attitude towards it, but this seems like a sad battle between aesthetics and economics - and there seems to be little room for compromise.
Any lawyers, law students, etc. help with this... people tent to forget that TM and R are not the same.
Just something to consider.
Is that fair to the artists who conceived the album, wrote the songs, performed the songs, etc??? I think not.
Damn good point. As a musician, I loathe the thought of not being the "owner" of my own work. That sucks, plain and simple. It is also probaly one of the reasons why I refuse to shop my songs to any record labels. Perhaps I'll never be a "superstar", but at least I'll have respect for myself.
I think that I agree with you... I really want to see OSX (of course, I'll have to get a new system - all I've got are too old), and I really look forward to what it will be able to do - perform and allow me to perform.
and, yes, I know, don't feed the trolls, but really, just what is this?
What is Apple's market share? Who are their core users? What "evil empire" handed them a big chunk of cash a few years ago?
I'd really like to hear some elaboration on just how you came up with this beautiful fantasy theory.
don't get me wrong, I've got macs (from an SE to an old powerbook, to a PPC601/G3 mutant box), I love my macs. My G3 runs MkLinux, too. But as far as Apple becoming the next evil empire, well, they missed that boat a while back, and they know it.
Flat out - I buy CD's. I don't use Napster. Why? Though the RIAA is a political machine, I don't feel they truly represent the artists. If by buying a CD I am still supporting the artists, then that's what I'll do. If the artists want to distribute their music for free, then I'll take it. I am a musician. I'd love to get my music out and be heard. I understand what it takes. I've had the pleasure of being able to know professionals - in the jazz field. I very badly want to see a "viable business model for the artists". I'd love to see the record companies fade into a niche of cheesey pop with real music by real musicians coming from their own realm - not powered by the almighty marketing buck.
You've got to look at this from a wider angle - we're not the sheep. We've got reasons why we do what we do. We don't just run amok without thought. Look at our posts, you have a rationale as to why you continue to buy CD's. So do I, and it focuses around a "higher moral" kinda thing (hell, its late, I'm tired, and rhetoric is failiing me here). But what about some kid down the street who just bought the latest Backstreet Boys release... did they have some moralistic, cognitive rationale as to why they bought it, or do they not care?
Take exception to being called a sheep. I wasn't referring to you, you are part of the exception. Stay that way. It's where we need to be.
I am really torn by that notion. I like the thought of having legally protected e-mail. I don't like the thought of giving that power to the feds. There are too many pro's and con's, and I don't know enough to like it either way. So far, status quo wins... but there has got to be something better.
It is great to be ideallistic. I try - and I know its not easy. Its especially hard to convince others. We might have all the greatest reasons to boycot RIAA sanctioned music - but that won't stop most from buying anyway. They just want the music - they don't care about the political/economic situations. And those same people simply see Napster - and likewise all alternatives/equivalents - as piracy and something to avoid.
Yeah, its sad - but I think its true.