You're confused that a owner/developer/hacker would take the time to write a program, and after justifying the costs, maybe even turning a profit, improves/refines it and frees it to the public? This sounds vaguely like the original intent of U.S. copyright laws. The owner/developer/hacker had limited term exclusive rights to his/her/their product, and later, after they've gotten monetary compensation for his/her/their efforts, GPL's it so that he/she/they can retain credit for having done the work.
P.S. Is there a provision in the GPL for passing on a sponsor list (i.e. people who've paid for previous versions)?
You know with such an expensive toy, someone's going to want to try to break it. This'll be a great opportunity for security research for IBM as they can observe what tweaks people use to personalize their chunk of the system.
I'm guessing the focus of the quote you're using is that while people make money from spamming now, there isn't much room for expansion. ("The possibility of income generation and market or business expansion are minuscule") The world may be full of stupid people, but there're still only a finite number of them. The prediction here is that any rush on Spamming will bust like the recent downturn in the online business industry. It's a warning that there is no guarantee of success just because it works for the first few people, there's only so much market to saturate with any business.
I admit it was kind of underhanded, but the request for a link to a picture just seemed too tempting to resist. For reasons that should be obvious, I didn't feel like checking to see whether the link worked. I was hoping very much that it was too ridiculous to be real. In case you missed the joke try goatse.cx.
"You may, of course, elect not to receive compensation, in which event you will not be required to sign a separate document or assign any of your intellectual property rights, although you are still encouraged to submit details of your attack."
They're encouraging the submission of details of a successful attack. Unfortunately they didn't say to whom they encourage it to be submitted. *mischievous grin* I'd recommend submitting it to several major news sources per the agreement.
copyright 1986. It describes an entire amusement park based on computer generated holograms guided by game masters(servers) to players(clients). Darned good book in addition to being 10 years worth of prior art to this thing.
You mean it took a while to compile a history of the guy's career? Terrible, slashdot should have been reporting his life since his birth, updated twice daily. Or maybe it takes time to put together a biography...
Compute! did that for a while, I remember seeing some of the older issues at the local public library. I don't remember if it was just a single page or multiple pages. I'm going to have to take another look and check the dates.
Summary of the article:
Getting a limited view of the world and forming your opinions on that view is wrong.
People should be obligated to get a broader view of the world to form valid opinions.
"... Should sites really be forced by law to carry view points that are abhorrent to them, to mimic the press's deadly habit of balancing every single point of view with an opposite one, creating eternal arguments and stalemates that turn civic discussions into WWF matches?"
^-- By this argument shouldn't content blocking sites be obligated to have goatse.cx links?
Ok, I reread the post. I'm guessing I missed the point the first time through. I assumed that the post was on topic and read it as such. I missed that he was saying the term "fair use" is being misused on/. My apologies for calling it a troll. Accurate or not it's off topic, and looks like a troll if read as being on topic.
On the other hand, I'd still pay well for anyone who comes up with a way of duplicating pizza.;)
It's still a troll even if you repost it. And you'd certainly have fair use of my car if A) I sold it to you, and B) it was easily replicable. The easily replicable bit is why there's a need for IP specific legislation. It never occured to people to come up with a law banning personal duplication of cars, or apples, for good reason... it's just not practical. If anyone comes up with a way for making backup copies of pizza please let me know.
IP laws really ought to take into account the difference between executables and data, as well as subdividing original and interpretted data. Writing a document using Corel Wordperfect doesn't give Corel copyright of your document (example of original data). Ripping an MP3 from a CD doesn't give you the copyright of the resulting MP3, nor does it give the writer of the program any rights over either the original or the derived work. Reverse engineering of data formats should IMHO be legal, but reverse engineering of executables shouldn't be. If any thing deserves to be protected it's closed source executables whose authors wish them to remain closed. Executables in their device-like nature should be protected as the author sees fit.
(Bad Analogy Time)
Suppose someone patents a better can opener, do they have the right to restrict the invention of a recloseable can?
Owner of the new can opener to the consumer: I'm sorry, but you're only allowed to open that can once with our product, and you're not allowed to put anything back into the can, and you're not allowed give anyone else use of the can or the can opener.
Owner of the new can opener to the inventor of the currently fictional recloseable can: You're going to have make all of your cans break after a certain number of uses, further you can't make them openable without our product. Also, you must make the food spoil if the can is opened with an obsolete can opener.
*end semi coherent rant for lack of more info*
Summing up what I tried to get across...
Copy control of commercial IP that eliminates the rightful use of personal IP using common devices is both intollerable and unjust.
I'm still puzzled why characters, whether in movies, books, songs, etc. are even considered for copyright. Shouldn't they be trademarks instead? The works that characters are featured in should be copyrighted, but unless the character itself is drastically changed by the owner, the protection that copyright affords doesn't really seem right. Trademark, near as I can tell, is meant to let a company or individual hold onto its brainchild as long as it remains associated by the public with its works.
Of course, I'm in the habit of being completely wrong at times...
Nah, that's the classic greek tragedy line. Read Oedipus Rex to better get the idea.
1. The King's been slain and a plague fall's upon the land.
2. No one knows why, let's all ask the oracle!
3 & 4. Oedipus finds out it was him, eye gouging and wandering in the wilderness commence.
Slashdot Mirror
Just think of the performance hit implementing anything natively rather than naively.
You could be a lot more concise by replacing 99% of legal documents with the following:
t(^_^t)
You're confused that a owner/developer/hacker would take the time to write a program, and after justifying the costs, maybe even turning a profit, improves/refines it and frees it to the public? This sounds vaguely like the original intent of U.S. copyright laws. The owner/developer/hacker had limited term exclusive rights to his/her/their product, and later, after they've gotten monetary compensation for his/her/their efforts, GPL's it so that he/she/they can retain credit for having done the work.
P.S. Is there a provision in the GPL for passing on a sponsor list (i.e. people who've paid for previous versions)?
You know with such an expensive toy, someone's going to want to try to break it. This'll be a great opportunity for security research for IBM as they can observe what tweaks people use to personalize their chunk of the system.
Not clicking anything would demonstrate prior art.
I'm guessing the focus of the quote you're using is that while people make money from spamming now, there isn't much room for expansion. ("The possibility of income generation and market or business expansion are minuscule") The world may be full of stupid people, but there're still only a finite number of them. The prediction here is that any rush on Spamming will bust like the recent downturn in the online business industry. It's a warning that there is no guarantee of success just because it works for the first few people, there's only so much market to saturate with any business.
I admit it was kind of underhanded, but the request for a link to a picture just seemed too tempting to resist. For reasons that should be obvious, I didn't feel like checking to see whether the link worked. I was hoping very much that it was too ridiculous to be real. In case you missed the joke try goatse.cx.
"You may, of course, elect not to receive compensation, in which event you will not be required to sign a separate document or assign any of your intellectual property rights, although you are still encouraged to submit details of your attack." They're encouraging the submission of details of a successful attack. Unfortunately they didn't say to whom they encourage it to be submitted. *mischievous grin* I'd recommend submitting it to several major news sources per the agreement.
copyright 1986. It describes an entire amusement park based on computer generated holograms guided by game masters(servers) to players(clients). Darned good book in addition to being 10 years worth of prior art to this thing.
Anyone trying assist with the display would probably get cease and desist orders for copying their "look and feel"(tm)
Penguins != mammals. Hint: Mammals are the animals with with hair.
This site discontinues its free service and requires a subscription and login.
I prefer being called "an infomaniac" because it sounds better. =)
You mean it took a while to compile a history of the guy's career? Terrible, slashdot should have been reporting his life since his birth, updated twice daily. Or maybe it takes time to put together a biography...
Compute! did that for a while, I remember seeing some of the older issues at the local public library. I don't remember if it was just a single page or multiple pages. I'm going to have to take another look and check the dates.
It's ok, take a deep breath and read my reply again. Notice the quotation marks this time. I was pointing out something that looked amiss.
Summary of the article:
Getting a limited view of the world and forming your opinions on that view is wrong.
People should be obligated to get a broader view of the world to form valid opinions.
"... Should sites really be forced by law to carry view points that are abhorrent to them, to mimic the press's deadly habit of balancing every single point of view with an opposite one, creating eternal arguments and stalemates that turn civic discussions into WWF matches?"
^-- By this argument shouldn't content blocking sites be obligated to have goatse.cx links?
Ewww, you mean that this might be transmittable via Back Orifice?
Ok, I reread the post. I'm guessing I missed the point the first time through. I assumed that the post was on topic and read it as such. I missed that he was saying the term "fair use" is being misused on /. My apologies for calling it a troll. Accurate or not it's off topic, and looks like a troll if read as being on topic.
On the other hand, I'd still pay well for anyone who comes up with a way of duplicating pizza. ;)
It's still a troll even if you repost it. And you'd certainly have fair use of my car if A) I sold it to you, and B) it was easily replicable. The easily replicable bit is why there's a need for IP specific legislation. It never occured to people to come up with a law banning personal duplication of cars, or apples, for good reason... it's just not practical. If anyone comes up with a way for making backup copies of pizza please let me know.
IP laws really ought to take into account the difference between executables and data, as well as subdividing original and interpretted data. Writing a document using Corel Wordperfect doesn't give Corel copyright of your document (example of original data). Ripping an MP3 from a CD doesn't give you the copyright of the resulting MP3, nor does it give the writer of the program any rights over either the original or the derived work. Reverse engineering of data formats should IMHO be legal, but reverse engineering of executables shouldn't be. If any thing deserves to be protected it's closed source executables whose authors wish them to remain closed. Executables in their device-like nature should be protected as the author sees fit. (Bad Analogy Time) Suppose someone patents a better can opener, do they have the right to restrict the invention of a recloseable can? Owner of the new can opener to the consumer: I'm sorry, but you're only allowed to open that can once with our product, and you're not allowed to put anything back into the can, and you're not allowed give anyone else use of the can or the can opener. Owner of the new can opener to the inventor of the currently fictional recloseable can: You're going to have make all of your cans break after a certain number of uses, further you can't make them openable without our product. Also, you must make the food spoil if the can is opened with an obsolete can opener. *end semi coherent rant for lack of more info* Summing up what I tried to get across... Copy control of commercial IP that eliminates the rightful use of personal IP using common devices is both intollerable and unjust.
I'm still puzzled why characters, whether in movies, books, songs, etc. are even considered for copyright. Shouldn't they be trademarks instead? The works that characters are featured in should be copyrighted, but unless the character itself is drastically changed by the owner, the protection that copyright affords doesn't really seem right. Trademark, near as I can tell, is meant to let a company or individual hold onto its brainchild as long as it remains associated by the public with its works. Of course, I'm in the habit of being completely wrong at times...
Nah, that's the classic greek tragedy line. Read Oedipus Rex to better get the idea. 1. The King's been slain and a plague fall's upon the land. 2. No one knows why, let's all ask the oracle! 3 & 4. Oedipus finds out it was him, eye gouging and wandering in the wilderness commence.
Everquest, Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, and others. They're chat rooms with monsters and quests. And each and every person has an avatar.
This just seemed too silly to pass up: "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these things"