I know of several people who have found work this way, and apparently they got no complaint.
There's a free ThinkGeek t-shirt available to your friends courtesy of a generous but skeptical/.er a few messages upstream of yours. I'd jump on it before he gets cold feet.;-)
Maybe not! He could still end up on the positive side of things, just because some people like to take pity on someone who they think is being unfairly abused. I think it would be screamingly funny if he managed to turn his 15 minutes of fame (and top 15 Yahoo ranking!) into some high profile career. Hey, Monica Lewinsky landed a gig as a talk show hostess, or something like that, which just goes to show you that not all bad publicity ends up being bad. Hell, maybe Dubya will appoint him as the National Spam Czar or something. He certainly is well-qualified, and the Cabinet can always use another idiot.
You need to tune up your BS detector. Relief effort? Yeah, it was about relieving Somalia of obstacles to US capitalism, not about feeding people. Read the post "BlackHawk Down = Bullshit" and get a clue.
Character development? To Katz that falls in the category of "Hollywood BS". Give Jon lots of shoot-em-up scenes, a nice sanitized version of the truth and a bucket of popcorn and he's good to go.
Man, them's gonna be some crusty gamers by Day Six. I think they should do a live webcast of the whole thing. Just imagine the thrill of watching gamers play against 5,000 other gamers. If they'd ever get RealAroma into production, it would even smell like you were there. Haw hawww hawwwwwww... *thud*
If you're logged in to an ISP's network, you can generally do whatever you want because they know who you are.
If you're not on their network, you can't just use their SMTP because they don't know who you are.
Those of you who are saying "I don't have any problem with this".... well duh. You're logged on to the network in question. The original poster evidently is not.
FYI, Earthlink does NOT allow you to authenticate to their SMTP from outside their network.
From the standpoint of clients who want to have domain-based email without being on the same network as their domain host, if they are using Outlook (I know, I know), which many are, they can use their own ISP's SMTP and put their domain email address in the replyto: field. Makes it look like it came from their domain. This has saved me a few migraines along the way. Thanks Microsoft! heh;-)
The problem is also the continuing monopoly over the "last mile" held by the telcos. Where I live, Ameritech has a stranglehold over the phone lines, which is a nightmare for our local DSL provider. Not to mention that A-tech has their *own* DSL product and aren't terribly enthusiastic (read: slow) about installing loops for their competitors. Add to that the prohibitive installation costs, which are tough to absorb for our smalltown DSL guys, but no sweat for a multi-billion dollar corporation. Even worse, the install costs are totally uncompetitive with cable, which you can get for *free* from yet another multi-billion dollar monopoly. The last mile problem won't be solved until government steps in to open access to the lines (for whatever technology) and level the playing field on installation charges.
Give me a break. As if a typically mind-numbing Slashdot thread on this subject from two years ago provides any "proof". I scanned the thread myself and didn't see a shred of incontrovertible evidence that this is true, nor a link to anything any more insightful than the same old conspiracy-theorist windbaggery espoused by people like Gilmore. Come back when you have some FACTS. Breathless hyperbole doesn't count for dick.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that all computers were once just blobs of silicon, copper and undifferentiated polymers in some primordial soup. Well I just ain't buying it. I'll have you know that God created computers in 7 days and then sent us his Son, Linus, to show us the Way, the Truth and the Light. Nonbelievers will be punished on Judgement Day.
I rilly apreshiated the rigorisness and thoroughsity of the artikle. Its rair to find this type of insightfulous and comprehenstable matereal in a acedemical orientated analisis.
It's an interesting dilemma. I agree that parody and satire should be considered non-infringing, at least to the degree that they truly are original works. If the author of Done Gone had lifted entire passages from GWTW and incorporated them in the work, then I would consider it an infringement on the author's original prose. I can think of quite a few examples where an artist's "style" has been ripped-off, but aren't (and probably shouldn't be) considered as infringing. Gary Larsen's Far Side comic strip comes to mind. So if someone copied my style as a photographer, I might be disgusted if they did it poorly (or flattered if they did it well), but I couldn't complain that they were infringing on my rights. If, however, they set out to duplicate a specific photograph by reproducing the subject, composition, lighting technique and exposure, then I'd consider it a violation of my copyright because that particular "vision", if you will, belongs to me. I guess the bottom line is that it's a terribly murky issue, and broad brush solutions like compulsory rights are fraught with difficulties. In any case, thanks for your thoughtful replies, and all the best for the holidays.
Hogwash. My view is espoused by vast numbers of people who create art, music and other forms of IP that often has immense value. Your view is espoused by people who want to deny creators the right to reap the fair market value of their work, as if you have some sort of God-given right to the product of MY talents and to use MY work for whatever purpose you see fit.
Your second point is even less cogent. The kind of information to which I refer isn't some generic product available in unlimited quantities, it is a finite amount of work produced by individual authors. As such, it not only has the prerequisite scarcity that determines value in the market, but qualitative value based on how "good" or "bad" the market perceives it to be. That's why an original Ansel Adams print will set you back a couple hundred thou, whilst a print of my latest masterpiece can be had for a couple hundred bucks.
Information may *want* to be free, but so does beer, and I almost always have to pay for that.
I am aware of his work as an author, which is why I qualified my comment with "almost." It was meant to reach beyond Lessig, but I didn't express that very clearly. There certainly are some creators who, for whatever reason, are willing to diminish their rights to their own work. I'm not one of them.
I am also well aware that copyright is time-limited, and I don't disagree with that. I definitely overstated the degree of finality that applies to my ability to control uses of my work, but my main point isn't about the duration of copyright. It's about Lessig's view that derivative rights should be restricted and that values for derivative uses should be set by law or committee. On these points I strenuously disagree.
More importantly, I think we need to restrict the scope of "derivative rights" more than we do today. Copyright owners deserve to be paid for the use of their work; they should not be allowed to veto follow on work that builds on theirs.
This view is almost always espoused by people who don't actually create anything that has value. When I take a series of photographs, they are MINE. Period. End of story. Nobody should have the right to incorporate MY images in derivative works without my permission. It isn't about getting paid, it's about having control over what *I* created, and to ensure that no one can pervert my work by using it in ways that I don't like. If you want a photo that looks like mine to incorporate in your own work, GO TAKE ONE YOURSELF.
Compulsory rights require that the author of the original work get paid, but the rate is either set by the law, or set by a panel to be relatively low. This will give artists more than they would have had, had there been no Internet. But it will assure that innovators can build out the future of the Internet without the control of dinosaur industries.
More than they would have had? Says who? The market determines the value of IP, and that's the way it should stay. Building these values into the law or setting them by committee is preposterous. Sorry for the photo-centric examples, but I can't imagine that a classic image by Ansel Adams, which is worth enormous sums of money, should have a value fixed by a copyright law that says you can pay his estate $30, then go right ahead and incorporate "Moonrise over Hernandez, New Mexico" in the graphics for your new website. That's just wrong-headed, and I'd love to hear Lessig defend his view. Cuz I just ain't buying it.
Woulda burned all my mod points to knock even a little bit of this crap down where it belongs, so I'll just burn some karma instead. Word to my fellow moderators: this thread is about a VIRUS, not Slashdot demagoguery, or however you spell it. Please mod ME off-topic so I know at least someone is using their brain. While I'm ranting, how the hell is browsing at -1 while moderating supposed to help contain the trolls. That's how they got to -1 in the first place! Idiots.
Clever implies some sort of ingenuity or originality, neither of which really apply to this worm. If you want to talk about clever, look no further than BadTrans. It had SMTP capability, added an underscore to the return email address to make it more difficult to alert the victim, executed automatically in Outlook's preview pane, replied to your unanswered email, hid the attachment from most email programs AND installed a keystroke logger! Now THAT is clever, not to mention evil. This one is nothing more than script kiddie plagiarism.
Once again the "usability experts" are utterly and hopelessly out of touch with reality. I'm to believe that the desktop metaphor is dead, but the solution to it is multiple desktops? Say what? What was that about the desktop metaphor being dead? Can we please anoint some new "experts" in this field, or at least quote the ones who have something sensible to say? It amazes me how people can get so caught up in the morass of their own convoluted thinking that the obvious contradictions in what they are saying completely escapes them.
Join the chorus of reasonable voices DEMANDING that Katz come clean!
Jon, your continuing silence on this matter is an indictment of your total failure as a responsible journalist and further diminishes your already suspect credibility. Admit your mistake or get your sorry butt off this forum. If Notre Dame can fire their new coach for lying on his resume, you should be treated likewise for your shameless and unapologetic representation of fiction as fact.
Got BadTrans up the wazoo over here, too (USA). No sign of Goner yet. While folks are talking about threat assessments, let me ask this: how can Symantec give a nasty beast like BadTrans a "low damage" rating? It installs a frickin' keylogger and secretly emails your goodies to the bad guys! I got a couple copies from a BANK of all places. Sounds like the potential for a lot worse than "low damage" to me.
There is a time and a place for many of the things that "useability experts" like Nielson judge to be horrendous mistakes. It's all about context and the particular audience you're trying to reach. For example, he says you shouldn't have a separate SHOP button if you have product categories because users tend to search for the product first, then decide to buy it. What unmitigated crap. There's a lot to be said for giving site visitors several ways to get to the same information, so long as you don't confuse them in the process. In truth there are very few "rules" that apply in all cases to all websites. Not putting black links on a black background. Not using Front Page to build it. Etc, etc...
I hear this sort of thing really pisses off whales.
Re:northern (and southern) lights do this too...
on
Listening to Leonids
·
· Score: 1
an ELF interaction directly in the brain.
Only if you have a head full of pine needles. And it's not the sound that travels to the ground, it's radio waves at light speed which stimulate aforementioned pine needles to make sounds you can hear, presuming, of course, there is sufficient sap running from your ears to the pine needles to make the connection.
Plenty of details in there! A quick summary for those afflicted with ADD: VLF (Very Low Frequency) radio waves travel to the ground at light speed, stimulating various unsuspecting materials, like your glasses or frizzy hair, to generate sound waves audible to humans.
Slashdot Mirror
I know of several people who have found work this way, and apparently they got no complaint.
/.er a few messages upstream of yours. I'd jump on it before he gets cold feet. ;-)
There's a free ThinkGeek t-shirt available to your friends courtesy of a generous but skeptical
algorhythm n. a set of rules for describing the synchronous movements of the human body in response to an audible harmonic stimulus, such as music. ;-)
Maybe not! He could still end up on the positive side of things, just because some people like to take pity on someone who they think is being unfairly abused. I think it would be screamingly funny if he managed to turn his 15 minutes of fame (and top 15 Yahoo ranking!) into some high profile career. Hey, Monica Lewinsky landed a gig as a talk show hostess, or something like that, which just goes to show you that not all bad publicity ends up being bad. Hell, maybe Dubya will appoint him as the National Spam Czar or something. He certainly is well-qualified, and the Cabinet can always use another idiot.
You need to tune up your BS detector. Relief effort? Yeah, it was about relieving Somalia of obstacles to US capitalism, not about feeding people. Read the post "BlackHawk Down = Bullshit" and get a clue.
Character development? To Katz that falls in the category of "Hollywood BS". Give Jon lots of shoot-em-up scenes, a nice sanitized version of the truth and a bucket of popcorn and he's good to go.
Man, them's gonna be some crusty gamers by Day Six. I think they should do a live webcast of the whole thing. Just imagine the thrill of watching gamers play against 5,000 other gamers. If they'd ever get RealAroma into production, it would even smell like you were there. Haw hawww hawwwwwww... *thud*
If you're logged in to an ISP's network, you can generally do whatever you want because they know who you are.
;-)
If you're not on their network, you can't just use their SMTP because they don't know who you are.
Those of you who are saying "I don't have any problem with this".... well duh. You're logged on to the network in question. The original poster evidently is not.
FYI, Earthlink does NOT allow you to authenticate to their SMTP from outside their network.
From the standpoint of clients who want to have domain-based email without being on the same network as their domain host, if they are using Outlook (I know, I know), which many are, they can use their own ISP's SMTP and put their domain email address in the replyto: field. Makes it look like it came from their domain. This has saved me a few migraines along the way. Thanks Microsoft! heh
...the NYT is gonna get all steamed up about copyright infringement by people who post their entire articles at Slashdot. ;-)
The problem is also the continuing monopoly over the "last mile" held by the telcos. Where I live, Ameritech has a stranglehold over the phone lines, which is a nightmare for our local DSL provider. Not to mention that A-tech has their *own* DSL product and aren't terribly enthusiastic (read: slow) about installing loops for their competitors. Add to that the prohibitive installation costs, which are tough to absorb for our smalltown DSL guys, but no sweat for a multi-billion dollar corporation. Even worse, the install costs are totally uncompetitive with cable, which you can get for *free* from yet another multi-billion dollar monopoly. The last mile problem won't be solved until government steps in to open access to the lines (for whatever technology) and level the playing field on installation charges.
Give me a break. As if a typically mind-numbing Slashdot thread on this subject from two years ago provides any "proof". I scanned the thread myself and didn't see a shred of incontrovertible evidence that this is true, nor a link to anything any more insightful than the same old conspiracy-theorist windbaggery espoused by people like Gilmore. Come back when you have some FACTS. Breathless hyperbole doesn't count for dick.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that all computers were once just blobs of silicon, copper and undifferentiated polymers in some primordial soup. Well I just ain't buying it. I'll have you know that God created computers in 7 days and then sent us his Son, Linus, to show us the Way, the Truth and the Light. Nonbelievers will be punished on Judgement Day.
I rilly apreshiated the rigorisness and thoroughsity of the artikle. Its rair to find this type of insightfulous and comprehenstable matereal in a acedemical orientated analisis.
It's an interesting dilemma. I agree that parody and satire should be considered non-infringing, at least to the degree that they truly are original works. If the author of Done Gone had lifted entire passages from GWTW and incorporated them in the work, then I would consider it an infringement on the author's original prose. I can think of quite a few examples where an artist's "style" has been ripped-off, but aren't (and probably shouldn't be) considered as infringing. Gary Larsen's Far Side comic strip comes to mind. So if someone copied my style as a photographer, I might be disgusted if they did it poorly (or flattered if they did it well), but I couldn't complain that they were infringing on my rights. If, however, they set out to duplicate a specific photograph by reproducing the subject, composition, lighting technique and exposure, then I'd consider it a violation of my copyright because that particular "vision", if you will, belongs to me. I guess the bottom line is that it's a terribly murky issue, and broad brush solutions like compulsory rights are fraught with difficulties. In any case, thanks for your thoughtful replies, and all the best for the holidays.
Hogwash. My view is espoused by vast numbers of people who create art, music and other forms of IP that often has immense value. Your view is espoused by people who want to deny creators the right to reap the fair market value of their work, as if you have some sort of God-given right to the product of MY talents and to use MY work for whatever purpose you see fit.
Your second point is even less cogent. The kind of information to which I refer isn't some generic product available in unlimited quantities, it is a finite amount of work produced by individual authors. As such, it not only has the prerequisite scarcity that determines value in the market, but qualitative value based on how "good" or "bad" the market perceives it to be. That's why an original Ansel Adams print will set you back a couple hundred thou, whilst a print of my latest masterpiece can be had for a couple hundred bucks.
Information may *want* to be free, but so does beer, and I almost always have to pay for that.
I am aware of his work as an author, which is why I qualified my comment with "almost." It was meant to reach beyond Lessig, but I didn't express that very clearly. There certainly are some creators who, for whatever reason, are willing to diminish their rights to their own work. I'm not one of them.
I am also well aware that copyright is time-limited, and I don't disagree with that. I definitely overstated the degree of finality that applies to my ability to control uses of my work, but my main point isn't about the duration of copyright. It's about Lessig's view that derivative rights should be restricted and that values for derivative uses should be set by law or committee. On these points I strenuously disagree.
More importantly, I think we need to restrict the scope of "derivative rights" more than we do today. Copyright owners deserve to be paid for the use of their work; they should not be allowed to veto follow on work that builds on theirs.
This view is almost always espoused by people who don't actually create anything that has value. When I take a series of photographs, they are MINE. Period. End of story. Nobody should have the right to incorporate MY images in derivative works without my permission. It isn't about getting paid, it's about having control over what *I* created, and to ensure that no one can pervert my work by using it in ways that I don't like. If you want a photo that looks like mine to incorporate in your own work, GO TAKE ONE YOURSELF.
Compulsory rights require that the author of the original work get paid, but the rate is either set by the law, or set by a panel to be relatively low. This will give artists more than they would have had, had there been no Internet. But it will assure that innovators can build out the future of the Internet without the control of dinosaur industries.
More than they would have had? Says who? The market determines the value of IP, and that's the way it should stay. Building these values into the law or setting them by committee is preposterous. Sorry for the photo-centric examples, but I can't imagine that a classic image by Ansel Adams, which is worth enormous sums of money, should have a value fixed by a copyright law that says you can pay his estate $30, then go right ahead and incorporate "Moonrise over Hernandez, New Mexico" in the graphics for your new website. That's just wrong-headed, and I'd love to hear Lessig defend his view. Cuz I just ain't buying it.
Woulda burned all my mod points to knock even a little bit of this crap down where it belongs, so I'll just burn some karma instead. Word to my fellow moderators: this thread is about a VIRUS, not Slashdot demagoguery, or however you spell it. Please mod ME off-topic so I know at least someone is using their brain. While I'm ranting, how the hell is browsing at -1 while moderating supposed to help contain the trolls. That's how they got to -1 in the first place! Idiots.
Clever implies some sort of ingenuity or originality, neither of which really apply to this worm. If you want to talk about clever, look no further than BadTrans. It had SMTP capability, added an underscore to the return email address to make it more difficult to alert the victim, executed automatically in Outlook's preview pane, replied to your unanswered email, hid the attachment from most email programs AND installed a keystroke logger! Now THAT is clever, not to mention evil. This one is nothing more than script kiddie plagiarism.
Once again the "usability experts" are utterly and hopelessly out of touch with reality. I'm to believe that the desktop metaphor is dead, but the solution to it is multiple desktops? Say what? What was that about the desktop metaphor being dead? Can we please anoint some new "experts" in this field, or at least quote the ones who have something sensible to say? It amazes me how people can get so caught up in the morass of their own convoluted thinking that the obvious contradictions in what they are saying completely escapes them.
Join the chorus of reasonable voices DEMANDING that Katz come clean!
Jon, your continuing silence on this matter is an indictment of your total failure as a responsible journalist and further diminishes your already suspect credibility. Admit your mistake or get your sorry butt off this forum. If Notre Dame can fire their new coach for lying on his resume, you should be treated likewise for your shameless and unapologetic representation of fiction as fact.
Got BadTrans up the wazoo over here, too (USA). No sign of Goner yet. While folks are talking about threat assessments, let me ask this: how can Symantec give a nasty beast like BadTrans a "low damage" rating? It installs a frickin' keylogger and secretly emails your goodies to the bad guys! I got a couple copies from a BANK of all places. Sounds like the potential for a lot worse than "low damage" to me.
There is a time and a place for many of the things that "useability experts" like Nielson judge to be horrendous mistakes. It's all about context and the particular audience you're trying to reach. For example, he says you shouldn't have a separate SHOP button if you have product categories because users tend to search for the product first, then decide to buy it. What unmitigated crap. There's a lot to be said for giving site visitors several ways to get to the same information, so long as you don't confuse them in the process. In truth there are very few "rules" that apply in all cases to all websites. Not putting black links on a black background. Not using Front Page to build it. Etc, etc...
I hear this sort of thing really pisses off whales.
an ELF interaction directly in the brain.
Only if you have a head full of pine needles. And it's not the sound that travels to the ground, it's radio waves at light speed which stimulate aforementioned pine needles to make sounds you can hear, presuming, of course, there is sufficient sap running from your ears to the pine needles to make the connection.
Plenty of details in there! A quick summary for those afflicted with ADD: VLF (Very Low Frequency) radio waves travel to the ground at light speed, stimulating various unsuspecting materials, like your glasses or frizzy hair, to generate sound waves audible to humans.