I can assure you our state is a little messed up sometimes. Catch this:
The state of South Carolina for years uses one-time funds for multiple years projects (not the brightest bulbs). This year the one time money didn't come in, and the state had a budget shortfall of $800M. The state decides to account for this shortfall they will cut funding to all state programs...except education...except colleges, because apparently colleges don't count as education. Tuition for instate residents at Clemson University just went up 40% this year to make up for the "we won't cut education, except for those rich colleges" decision. This is increasing ironic as last year Clemson University was named "Time Magazine's Public College of the Year" and this year we won a couple more awards. Apparently, in South Carolina, if you college wins a national award, you cut their funding. After all, we wouldn't want people to think South Carolina actually has GOOD schools! (I for the record do not mind the tuition increase. I personally support it as I feel the college had no choice. I fault the State, not the school.)
It does not suprise me in the slightest that South Carolina is having a little trouble figuring out what the law with regard to filtering should be. At least they made a decision here that tends more to the libertarian side.
Presume there is something that cannot be labeled. Call it 'X'
I was wondering where you got this quote. Perhaps from a Chemistry exam or the like? I think it is hilarious. If you saw it on a test, did you point out the fact it is self contridicting? LOL!
BTW, Moderators, I noted in the subject line this is off-topic, so please don't mod it as off-topic. Thank you
Marybeth Peters, the chief of the United States Copyright Office, said that the exception was still meaningful, even without a market for anti- circumvention devices, because it allowed individuals to figure out for themselves how to go around a technological control measure.
"Many of the people I know can come up with a program to do it themselves, without being in the business of doing it," Ms. Peters said.
She has GOT to be kidding if she thinks the average consumer has the ability to design tools that will allow them to access there fair use rights. This is idiotic. Most/.ers couldn't even handle this.
What she is suggesting would be like if wrenches were illegal, but you could make your own to fix your faucet that is leaking. "We believe the average consumer will find a way to make the wrenches they need." Sorry, but most people do not have the knowledge, expertise, or equipment to make wrenches. If you think most people can write code that will crack encryption, you shouldn't buy that new Lexus you have been looking at. Why not build you own car?
That sounds interesting. I wonder if any other movies have ever been shot in this fashion. Doing it this way seems a good way to maximize profit. You don't have to try to get all the actors together again, you don't have to get all the clearences to shot at certain locations again, you don't get unintended delay from actors pursuing aditional projects, etc. The only disadvantage is you could release both films at or near the same time, but you would never do that (to again maximize profit) which has the small potential to irritate Matrix loyalists. Other then that, this seems smart from a production angle. Does anyone know of other films that have tried this?
The hope is that -- as an open source network using Linux and standard IBM servers -- it will be easily expandable and able to follow a similar trajectory to the Internet.
"The only way to do this project is open source," project director Stevens said.
Interesting that researches know that open source projects are the only way they can control all the variables. After all, if you don't control the OS, you can't be sure some little bug in the code is screwing with your data. Universities have long understood this principle, which is why Unix is so popular. Now our millions of tax payer dollars will be spent on research rather then licensing costs, plus the research is controlled, scalable, and open to peer review. Always nice to see professionals understand the benefits of open source that no closed source movement could possibly replicate.
I don't believe this. For those of you who can't access the page because the poor TRS-80 couldn't handle it, these guys are leasing the rights to 4:20 am/pm! For the current bid price of $66, you can have your picture come up when it turns 4:20. See the auction at ebay
That's what I want to know. Some random woman sees a picture and says "That's my husband!" Now, IANAL (maybe someday) but it would seem to me this woman should accept some responsiblity for mis-identfing this man. He was harassed wrongfully. What is this woman supposed to do--say "Oops!"? What in the world was this woman thinking?
The arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov has brought to light a serious imbalance in current copyright law. This case shows why the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), while conceived for a noble purpose, was overreacting and has the potential to hit at the core ideas of Americans.
Copyrights are a necessity. Authors deserve the right to know that their work will be protected for a short amount of time. However, copyright is not an end unto itself, nor is it absolute. If copyright were absolute, copyright holders could use their copyright to exploit the people. The DMCA tips the balance towards this latter end. The DMCA has protected copyright holders, but at the expense of the masses. The DMCA has become a tool for copyright holders to tyrannize the masses of people who have no interest in denying copyright holders compensation for their works, and it this that makes the DMCA unbalanced.
Dmitry wrote a program to enable the purchasers of e-books to exercise the fair use privileges that Americans are accustomed. Consumers deserve the right to be able to back up materials they have purchased or convert information they have bought to a different format. Copyright law has put a stranglehold on these freedoms.
The DMCA needs to be re-written in such a way that both consumers and publishers are protected. Tools themselves should not be illegal, but the use of those tools for illegal purposes should be. In other words, don't go after software writers and scientists, go after the people who use tools to circumvent the law. People are afraid to talk about subjects that might be covered by someone else's copyright; we cannot allow copyright to inhibit free discussion. Punish the people who would use tools in an illegal way and go after violators rather then the professionals who create these tools for legitimate and necessary purposes.
I know Dell (along with IBM) has been one of the larger champions of Linux. Its a shame to see Dell pull Linux of Laptops/Desktops. I have this old Dell laptop that I am dual booting Windows ME/Red Hat 7.0 on, and it is a cool system. But in a market like this, I suppose it was to be expected.
The fact that Red Hat is still being offered on the server side tells me that alot of companies have seen the strength of Linux for that environment. Linux still has a ways to go on to where end users (not the type of people running servers) will be comfortable with it. But Linux is both a stable and familiar choice with those on the server side, and that is what we are seeing reflected.
I appreciate Dell's willingness to keep open the option to reinstate the program when the economy gets better and people are more willing to experiment.
I am wondering here about my right to make a back-up copy of CDs I purchase. I scratch my CDs regularly because I am not careful with them.
Microsoft's software comes with a EULA (as does most other software) that says, among other things, that I MAY make a copy for archival purposes.
CDs do not come with a EULA of any kind however. They do not say what my rights are and are not. I would assume I have a "right" to make a copy for backup purposes. I suppose Sony could sell me a CD saying "No, you don't have the right to make a copy of this", as if I buy the CD I agree to the terms.
I however find it unfair for Sony not to inform me that they are selling me a CD which if I use the rights I assume I have (since I haven't been told otherwise and as I pointed out is a right I have in similar media) and make a copy, I will damage my equipment. I think this is potentially inviting lawsuits for damaged equipment (IANAL).
No, they still do. There is a reason it is called the "Original" formula. Cocaine is still a bi-product. They just extract it all later. I once read that Coca-cola is the world's largest producer of Cocaine for pharmacies. BTW, cocaine is legal for some mediacal use, including as a local anastetic for the nose. Fun facts, eh? Please see Web MD's page about the legal uses of cocaine.
Red Hat has recently turned its first profit, which came a year earlier then anticipated. Now we see Red Hat striking deals with other major companies in an attempt to expand itself beyond the server/desktop market. Red Hat has really become a serious company with long term potential, and is the force that is pushing open source into wider acceptance in more markets. Perhaps Mandrake will be doing something similar in 5 years now that they are an IPO.
Open source cell phones sounds like a really good idea. There has got to be a hundred different manufactures of cell phones, and a hundred more people who sell cell phone. Each seller can customize his or her OS without having to beg someone else to do it. The distributors of cell phones will have power to customize their "client." Consumers will have power to insert a different distribution (perhaps) then the one they were given. Linux seems like an ideal OS choice for cell phone makers.
Hats off to Red Hat! I hope they are successful with this project and get open source widely accepted by a wider range of companies.
Do yourself a favor a write your letter on paper and mail in via snail mail instead. Congressman do not pay the same attention to an email as snail mail, and your message will be more effective if mailed in. Look at my earlier post on how to accomplish this, and some recommendation notes.
But I don't want a free sklyarov shirt...that isn't what the URL is talking about. I donate my money straight to the EFF anyway. I sent them a check to make sure none was taken away for credit card fees though.
After a little digging, it appears that it passed the House by a voice vote (no record) and passed the Senate by unanimous consent (no one said "no", but someone might not have voted). The house sub committee that approved it voted to recommend it to the full House with a vote of 41-0.
Looks like it swept through without too much a fight:(
I got off my butt and wrote all three of my elected representative on Wednesday asking then to "repeal or amend" the DMCA. I highly recommend killing a tree and writing them a letter, as email is not treated as well in most circles. Send a letter to Washington instead of preaching to the choir...convince the people that can make the DMCA go away!
Remember to be polite and clear but firm. Tell them why the DMCA is bad and how it upsets the balance between fair use and copyright holders. Make sure to spell and grammar check it (it won't be effective if it is full of grammatical errors) and make sure it is not inflammatory or threatening.
Lastly, donate a buck to the EFF. They are the ones that will help you speak louder then you can by yourself.
Do your civic duty. Stop complaining to all the people that can't help you (the/. crowd) and start complaining to the people that can (politicians).
Slashdot Mirror
I can assure you our state is a little messed up sometimes. Catch this:
The state of South Carolina for years uses one-time funds for multiple years projects (not the brightest bulbs). This year the one time money didn't come in, and the state had a budget shortfall of $800M. The state decides to account for this shortfall they will cut funding to all state programs...except education...except colleges, because apparently colleges don't count as education. Tuition for instate residents at Clemson University just went up 40% this year to make up for the "we won't cut education, except for those rich colleges" decision. This is increasing ironic as last year Clemson University was named "Time Magazine's Public College of the Year" and this year we won a couple more awards. Apparently, in South Carolina, if you college wins a national award, you cut their funding. After all, we wouldn't want people to think South Carolina actually has GOOD schools! (I for the record do not mind the tuition increase. I personally support it as I feel the college had no choice. I fault the State, not the school.)
It does not suprise me in the slightest that South Carolina is having a little trouble figuring out what the law with regard to filtering should be. At least they made a decision here that tends more to the libertarian side.
This is hilarious. The articles are within 2 posts of each other on the developers page. LOL!
Yes, it should.
Presume there is something that cannot be labeled. Call it 'X'
I was wondering where you got this quote. Perhaps from a Chemistry exam or the like? I think it is hilarious. If you saw it on a test, did you point out the fact it is self contridicting? LOL!
BTW, Moderators, I noted in the subject line this is off-topic, so please don't mod it as off-topic. Thank you
Marybeth Peters, the chief of the United States Copyright Office, said that the exception was still meaningful, even without a market for anti- circumvention devices, because it allowed individuals to figure out for themselves how to go around a technological control measure.
/.ers couldn't even handle this.
"Many of the people I know can come up with a program to do it themselves, without being in the business of doing it," Ms. Peters said.
She has GOT to be kidding if she thinks the average consumer has the ability to design tools that will allow them to access there fair use rights. This is idiotic. Most
What she is suggesting would be like if wrenches were illegal, but you could make your own to fix your faucet that is leaking. "We believe the average consumer will find a way to make the wrenches they need." Sorry, but most people do not have the knowledge, expertise, or equipment to make wrenches. If you think most people can write code that will crack encryption, you shouldn't buy that new Lexus you have been looking at. Why not build you own car?
http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/08/13/technology/ ebusiness/13NECO.html?0813inside
Can't article submitters please take the easy step of replacing www with archives? It works every time.
How about The Godfather II? It won Best Picture. Only sequel ever to do so, but it certainly still counts.
That sounds interesting. I wonder if any other movies have ever been shot in this fashion. Doing it this way seems a good way to maximize profit. You don't have to try to get all the actors together again, you don't have to get all the clearences to shot at certain locations again, you don't get unintended delay from actors pursuing aditional projects, etc. The only disadvantage is you could release both films at or near the same time, but you would never do that (to again maximize profit) which has the small potential to irritate Matrix loyalists. Other then that, this seems smart from a production angle. Does anyone know of other films that have tried this?
The hope is that -- as an open source network using Linux and standard IBM servers -- it will be easily expandable and able to follow a similar trajectory to the Internet.
"The only way to do this project is open source," project director Stevens said.
Interesting that researches know that open source projects are the only way they can control all the variables. After all, if you don't control the OS, you can't be sure some little bug in the code is screwing with your data. Universities have long understood this principle, which is why Unix is so popular. Now our millions of tax payer dollars will be spent on research rather then licensing costs, plus the research is controlled, scalable, and open to peer review. Always nice to see professionals understand the benefits of open source that no closed source movement could possibly replicate.
Too obscure...what are you talking about?
I don't believe this. For those of you who can't access the page because the poor TRS-80 couldn't handle it, these guys are leasing the rights to 4:20 am/pm! For the current bid price of $66, you can have your picture come up when it turns 4:20. See the auction at ebay
That's what I want to know. Some random woman sees a picture and says "That's my husband!" Now, IANAL (maybe someday) but it would seem to me this woman should accept some responsiblity for mis-identfing this man. He was harassed wrongfully. What is this woman supposed to do--say "Oops!"? What in the world was this woman thinking?
I remember when 6 GB hard drives first hit the market. I thought to myself *no one* needs this much space. How I have been shown up.
The arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov has brought to light a serious imbalance in current copyright law. This case shows why the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), while conceived for a noble purpose, was overreacting and has the potential to hit at the core ideas of Americans.
Copyrights are a necessity. Authors deserve the right to know that their work will be protected for a short amount of time. However, copyright is not an end unto itself, nor is it absolute. If copyright were absolute, copyright holders could use their copyright to exploit the people. The DMCA tips the balance towards this latter end. The DMCA has protected copyright holders, but at the expense of the masses. The DMCA has become a tool for copyright holders to tyrannize the masses of people who have no interest in denying copyright holders compensation for their works, and it this that makes the DMCA unbalanced.
Dmitry wrote a program to enable the purchasers of e-books to exercise the fair use privileges that Americans are accustomed. Consumers deserve the right to be able to back up materials they have purchased or convert information they have bought to a different format. Copyright law has put a stranglehold on these freedoms.
The DMCA needs to be re-written in such a way that both consumers and publishers are protected. Tools themselves should not be illegal, but the use of those tools for illegal purposes should be. In other words, don't go after software writers and scientists, go after the people who use tools to circumvent the law. People are afraid to talk about subjects that might be covered by someone else's copyright; we cannot allow copyright to inhibit free discussion. Punish the people who would use tools in an illegal way and go after violators rather then the professionals who create these tools for legitimate and necessary purposes.
I know Dell (along with IBM) has been one of the larger champions of Linux. Its a shame to see Dell pull Linux of Laptops/Desktops. I have this old Dell laptop that I am dual booting Windows ME/Red Hat 7.0 on, and it is a cool system. But in a market like this, I suppose it was to be expected.
The fact that Red Hat is still being offered on the server side tells me that alot of companies have seen the strength of Linux for that environment. Linux still has a ways to go on to where end users (not the type of people running servers) will be comfortable with it. But Linux is both a stable and familiar choice with those on the server side, and that is what we are seeing reflected.
I appreciate Dell's willingness to keep open the option to reinstate the program when the economy gets better and people are more willing to experiment.
I am wondering here about my right to make a back-up copy of CDs I purchase. I scratch my CDs regularly because I am not careful with them.
Microsoft's software comes with a EULA (as does most other software) that says, among other things, that I MAY make a copy for archival purposes.
CDs do not come with a EULA of any kind however. They do not say what my rights are and are not. I would assume I have a "right" to make a copy for backup purposes. I suppose Sony could sell me a CD saying "No, you don't have the right to make a copy of this", as if I buy the CD I agree to the terms.
I however find it unfair for Sony not to inform me that they are selling me a CD which if I use the rights I assume I have (since I haven't been told otherwise and as I pointed out is a right I have in similar media) and make a copy, I will damage my equipment. I think this is potentially inviting lawsuits for damaged equipment (IANAL).
No, they still do. There is a reason it is called the "Original" formula. Cocaine is still a bi-product. They just extract it all later. I once read that Coca-cola is the world's largest producer of Cocaine for pharmacies. BTW, cocaine is legal for some mediacal use, including as a local anastetic for the nose. Fun facts, eh? Please see Web MD's page about the legal uses of cocaine.
I personally like this one....
Old Batman: I'm headed out for the evening...
Batman Beyond Guy: But you promised!!!
Old Batman: Ugh....Jigglypuff, Jigglypuff, Jigglypuff, Jiggly...
Cracks me up every time....
Red Hat has recently turned its first profit, which came a year earlier then anticipated. Now we see Red Hat striking deals with other major companies in an attempt to expand itself beyond the server/desktop market. Red Hat has really become a serious company with long term potential, and is the force that is pushing open source into wider acceptance in more markets. Perhaps Mandrake will be doing something similar in 5 years now that they are an IPO.
Open source cell phones sounds like a really good idea. There has got to be a hundred different manufactures of cell phones, and a hundred more people who sell cell phone. Each seller can customize his or her OS without having to beg someone else to do it. The distributors of cell phones will have power to customize their "client." Consumers will have power to insert a different distribution (perhaps) then the one they were given. Linux seems like an ideal OS choice for cell phone makers.
Hats off to Red Hat! I hope they are successful with this project and get open source widely accepted by a wider range of companies.
Do yourself a favor a write your letter on paper and mail in via snail mail instead. Congressman do not pay the same attention to an email as snail mail, and your message will be more effective if mailed in. Look at my earlier post on how to accomplish this, and some recommendation notes.
But I don't want a free sklyarov shirt...that isn't what the URL is talking about. I donate my money straight to the EFF anyway. I sent them a check to make sure none was taken away for credit card fees though.
After a little digging, it appears that it passed the House by a voice vote (no record) and passed the Senate by unanimous consent (no one said "no", but someone might not have voted). The house sub committee that approved it voted to recommend it to the full House with a vote of 41-0.
:(
Looks like it swept through without too much a fight
I got off my butt and wrote all three of my elected representative on Wednesday asking then to "repeal or amend" the DMCA. I highly recommend killing a tree and writing them a letter, as email is not treated as well in most circles. Send a letter to Washington instead of preaching to the choir...convince the people that can make the DMCA go away!
f m
/. crowd) and start complaining to the people that can (politicians).
To find out who your Representative is, see: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
To find out who your two Senators are, see: http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.c
Remember to be polite and clear but firm. Tell them why the DMCA is bad and how it upsets the balance between fair use and copyright holders. Make sure to spell and grammar check it (it won't be effective if it is full of grammatical errors) and make sure it is not inflammatory or threatening.
Lastly, donate a buck to the EFF. They are the ones that will help you speak louder then you can by yourself.
Do your civic duty. Stop complaining to all the people that can't help you (the
There is a small graphic in the EFF arhcives, but it is small. If you have a bigger, high quality graphic, that would be helpful
Does anyone have links to a video of the debate between Red Hat and Mircrosoft or a transcript or the Clay Shirky/David Stutz debate?