I'm just reading Holldobler and Wilson's massive tome The Ants. That won a Pulitzer prize, but it's basically a comprehensive review of everything known aout ants (when it was writte in 1990), so it's not light reading - and it's a whopping heavy book, too!
There's a popular book by the same authors called Journey to the Ants.
I assume the "22 pounds" was translated from an original "10 kilograms". But "10" there is a kind of generic number - maybe meaning "between 5 and 50" in this context - so I think "20 pounds" would actually have been a better translation.
People who buy from Clean Flicks do so with full knowledge that they are not getting the directors original cut.
Well, it depends how the labelling is done, but I
get the impression they're still buying something labelled e.g. "Orson Welles' Citizen Kane", with a small sticker saying "cut" and no indication of what or how much has been cut (maybe I'm wrong, maybe they include a brief "2 minutes 13 seconds cut here" message?) - ie, they are being sold something that is not the work of Orson Welles as his work, and are likely to go away with completely wrongheaded ideas about him.
Cut the crap about artists and directors deserving some sort of ultimate control over how people experience their work.
Where did I say anything remotely like that? I'm concerned about issues of attribution, citation, and representation.
To take another analogy, should people be able to republish scientific papers with all the bits that they disagree with removed - labelled as "abridged" but using the original title and under the name of the original authors?
But they're still selling the tapes with the same titles, aren't they, using the directors' and actors' names to sell them... And are they marking the changes at all - do they include a brief "some material has been censored" message whenever they cut anything?
Obviously it depends how they are doing it - how they are doing attribution of authorship and marking of changes - but I find this unpleasant, and for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright or censorship.
Would it be ok to add extra scenes to films? Say to put in some Democrat/Republican propaganda, distribute the films around election time... with a sticker saying "modified for promotional purposes", of course.
almost none of the companies that use apache source code market it as apache
Exactly. And nor should people be distributing modified versions of (say) Pulp Fiction as Pulp Fiction, not unless the director is ok with it. That's just straight-forward misrepresentation.
What is the difference between Clean Flicks and the fast forward button?
The fast forward button is private, Clean Flicks is not.
Note that I'm not saying people shouldn't be free to modify, parody, etc. films as they feel free - I just don't think copyright is the only issue.
It's perfectly legal to take free software and modify it. But it's not ok to take (say) the Apache code, introduce a few thousand security holes into it, and then distribute the resulting binaries as "Apache".
Similarly, whether you think it should be ok to do anything to films, surely it's not ok to take Citizen Kane, cut arbitrary portions of it out, and then redistribute the result as Orson Welles' Citizen Kane...
So I can take your post, modify it in any way I like, and then repost it *under your name*?
The problem is not really copyright infringement, it's misrepresentation. So I think the company should be allowed to rent or sell edited versions of the films, but they should be forced to change the titles, the name of the producer, the names of the actors, etc. if any of those people insist on it.
If I wrote a novel and someone bowdlerized it and then published the result under my name, I'd be pretty peeved.
No one should be allowed to interact with matter - let alone study physics! - until they have the necessary mathematics background to understand what they are doing. Otherwise they could screw up all kinds of things.
(We don't let people drive cars without a licence, why would we let them loose on the universe without proper training?)
So you should spent fifty years studying mathematics first, in order to attain a sufficient level of enlightenment to safely bind yourself to the Wheel.
corporates vs non-profits
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 2
I'm not sure this is so clear-cut. Corporate sites can pay for links in directories such as Yahoo's, it is true, but on the other hand people are often happier about linking to non-profit sites... (I'm assuming the content on each is of equal attractiveness.)
I do ok competing against the book pages of the New York Times, etc. (though I'm currently behind the Boston Globe on a search for "book reviews").
Indeed! Google solved the "Microsoft's homepage will rank top for any word on it" problem a long time ago, by taking links anchors into account.
As an example of that,
my PR 8 homepage has a reference to "Sidewalks of New York" on it, but ranks 530th on a search for that phrase. That's largely because none of the links to my homepage contain the words "sidewalks" or "york".
Google PageRank (and the search rankings, whch are different to that) are calculated per page, not per-site, so links on pages "in the wilderness" on obscure parts of AOL or Geocities don't count for much.
There may be some confusion because the Google Toolbar, when viewing a page that hasn't been indexed, tries to "guess" what it's PageRank would be based on the site PageRank... but that's not "real".
If you want to know more about Google, the place to go is the Webmaster World Google forum.
It helps that she and her partner live in the same house, of course, but almost all the support queries come when he reboots into Windows 3.1 (to run WordPerfect for a book he's finishing off).
They use Mozilla for both web browsing and email, and AbiWord for simple word-processing. That all runs just fast enough with GNOME, on an old 166Mhz Cyrix box with 64MB of memory.
This setup does 95% of what they want, and if I can get the printer working it will probably be 98%.
Slashdot Mirror
Danny.
More censorship humour.
Danny.
There's a popular book by the same authors called Journey to the Ants.
Danny.
Danny.
Danny.
Danny.
Danny.
Well, it depends how the labelling is done, but I get the impression they're still buying something labelled e.g. "Orson Welles' Citizen Kane", with a small sticker saying "cut" and no indication of what or how much has been cut (maybe I'm wrong, maybe they include a brief "2 minutes 13 seconds cut here" message?) - ie, they are being sold something that is not the work of Orson Welles as his work, and are likely to go away with completely wrongheaded ideas about him.
Cut the crap about artists and directors deserving some sort of ultimate control over how people experience their work.
Where did I say anything remotely like that? I'm concerned about issues of attribution, citation, and representation.
To take another analogy, should people be able to republish scientific papers with all the bits that they disagree with removed - labelled as "abridged" but using the original title and under the name of the original authors?
Danny.
Obviously it depends how they are doing it - how they are doing attribution of authorship and marking of changes - but I find this unpleasant, and for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright or censorship.
Would it be ok to add extra scenes to films? Say to put in some Democrat/Republican propaganda, distribute the films around election time... with a sticker saying "modified for promotional purposes", of course.
Danny.
But editors (usually) work with authors on books.
Danny.
Exactly. And nor should people be distributing modified versions of (say) Pulp Fiction as Pulp Fiction, not unless the director is ok with it. That's just straight-forward misrepresentation.
What is the difference between Clean Flicks and the fast forward button?
The fast forward button is private, Clean Flicks is not.
Note that I'm not saying people shouldn't be free to modify, parody, etc. films as they feel free - I just don't think copyright is the only issue.
Danny.
Similarly, whether you think it should be ok to do anything to films, surely it's not ok to take Citizen Kane, cut arbitrary portions of it out, and then redistribute the result as Orson Welles' Citizen Kane...
Danny.
The problem is not really copyright infringement, it's misrepresentation. So I think the company should be allowed to rent or sell edited versions of the films, but they should be forced to change the titles, the name of the producer, the names of the actors, etc. if any of those people insist on it.
If I wrote a novel and someone bowdlerized it and then published the result under my name, I'd be pretty peeved.
Danny.
So you should spent fifty years studying mathematics first, in order to attain a sufficient level of enlightenment to safely bind yourself to the Wheel.
Danny.
Danny.
I do ok competing against the book pages of the New York Times, etc. (though I'm currently behind the Boston Globe on a search for "book reviews").
Danny.
- Islandia (Austin Tappan Wright)
- The Dispossessed (Ursula K. Le Guin)
- Woman on the Edge of Time (Marge Piercy)
Be warned, however, that some of these are reasonably depressing, despite being about utopias...Danny.
As an example of that, my PR 8 homepage has a reference to "Sidewalks of New York" on it, but ranks 530th on a search for that phrase. That's largely because none of the links to my homepage contain the words "sidewalks" or "york".
Danny.
There may be some confusion because the Google Toolbar, when viewing a page that hasn't been indexed, tries to "guess" what it's PageRank would be based on the site PageRank... but that's not "real".
If you want to know more about Google, the place to go is the Webmaster World Google forum.
Danny.
Danny.
Danny.
- The Art of Computer Programming (Knuth)
- Designing Web Usability (Nielsen)
- Computer Networks: A Systems Approach (Peterson + Davies)
- Distributed Algorithms (Lynch)
See the computer science, computing, networks, and Internet sections for information about lots of other books.Danny.
They use Mozilla for both web browsing and email, and AbiWord for simple word-processing. That all runs just fast enough with GNOME, on an old 166Mhz Cyrix box with 64MB of memory. This setup does 95% of what they want, and if I can get the printer working it will probably be 98%.
Danny.
Danny.
Danny.