If you want to change behaviour using sticks rather than carrots you do need to use an appropriate stick. Hitting an elephant with a matchstick probably won't influence his behaviour much, hitting him with a telegraph pole might get his attention.
If Google was fined $1,000,000 every time one of their employees gets caught speeding, they'd pretty soon figure out how to prevent their employees speeding (or at least getting caught)
Not much of a sailor on the cruiser. According to TFA he saw the sub 100-200 yds ahead and ordered "all back". Should have been hard a port or starboard
Why would you consider that to be an example of "fair use"? Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law I get "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
The band in question wouldn't be "forbidden" to make the cover, they would simply need to agree licensing terms with the copyright holder. That [licensing] sounds perfectly fair and reasonable to me, your "form of fair use" sounds like simple theft.
This is certainly the way I read it. I watched the video and almost as soon as Coyne started I felt my hackles rise. For a "scientist" he made a pathetic and childish argument, a sneering rant in fact.
If Jerry Coyne's the best science can come up with I'm going back to worshipping trees.
My final contribution on this matter before retiring to the pub is:
1) I accept that US copyright law appears to employ the concept of a copy owner, with associated rights. 2) I withdraw my comments about the GPL. 3) I cite below the relevant sections of the relevant UK law "The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992"
New permitted acts in relation to computer programs
8. After section 50 insert--
Computer programs: lawful users
"Back up copies.
50A.--(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.
(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 50B and 50C a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program.
(3) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).
Decompilation.
50B.--(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program expressed in a low level language--
(a) to convert it into a version expressed in a higher level language, or
(b) incidentally in the course of so converting the program, to copy it,
(that is, to "decompile" it), provided that the conditions in subsection (2) are met.
(2) The conditions are that--
(a) it is necessary to decompile the program to obtain the information necessary to create an independent program which can be operated with the program decompiled or with another program ("the permitted objective"); and
(b) the information so obtained is not used for any purpose other than the permitted objective.
(3) In particular, the conditions in subsection (2) are not met if the lawful user--
(a) has readily available to him the information necessary to achieve the permitted objective;
(b) does not confine the decompiling to such acts as are necessary to achieve the permitted objective;
I'm sorry, my use of capitals has suggested too much weight given to the letter of the law as opposed to the concepts.
When you purchase an intrinsically physical item such as a book, the valuable commodity purchased is (mostly) the physical item itself. The user commonly derives the benefit of the book by reading it but there are other valuable uses: doorstop and table leg leveller being the obvious ones.
When you purchase a piece of software there are only two valuable uses: using it and learning from it. Some learning uses are simply by-products of normal use and can be treated as normal use; other techniques such as reverse engineering are generally outlawed one way or another.
Microsoft Windows XP Professional retails at $299. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/pr icingretail.mspx/ It's hard to imagine that the physical media might be worth that or anyone might pay that to merely "own a copy". The only reasonable commodity trade surely is the right to use the software.
The concept of a Licence to Use is firmly, unquestionably, established both in UK and US legal jurisdictions and is the basis on which ALL software is licensed including under the GPL.
That is what you buy when you buy software from anyone, the Right to Use the software. The obvious exception to this rule would be if you purchased the Copyright itself.
Surely all that would be needed is a simple dialog box with [Yes] [No] and [Cancel] buttons over the question "Are you sure?", perhaps with a little warning about how dangerous guns are, every time the trigger is pulled.
With a larger screen and maybe a soundcard, it could popup a paperclip asking "I think you're trying to kill someone, would you like some help?"
In the 21st century, the legal definition of "sign" does indeed include some, not all, instances of "a few lines of text" in an email. I quote from paras 28 & 30 of the judgement.
"I have no doubt that if a party creates and sends an electronically created document then he will be treated as having signed it to the same extent that he would in law be treated as having signed a hard copy of the same document. The fact that the document is created electronically as opposed to as a hard copy can make no difference."
"If a party or a party's agent sending an e mail types his or her or his or her principal's name to the extent required or permitted by existing case law in the body of an e mail, then in my view that would be a sufficient signature for the purposes of Section 4"
1) Never believe anything anyone tells you: always test for yourself. 2) Always ask the dumb questions: is it switched on? 3) Reboot cures most things EXCEPT rm -r * when logged in as root
This will give the EU a much needed opportunity to consider the issues properly with the benefit of major campaigning forces on BOTH sides of the arguments instead of just the big boys arguing for unlimited patentability.
The ability to run linux straight from the CD with no low level hard disk interference may not be enough of itself to encourage investigation and/or take up of linux by Windows users but it certainly represents a leap forward.
Most Windows users are not computer nerds, they're just people who *use* computers - installing an operating system onto a hard disk, with or without risk to their existing setup, is just way beyond their skills or desires.
Speed issues can be helped out if not resolved by use of RAM disk as demonstrated by http://www.goosee.com/puppy/
"stressed that he had seen no evidence of espionage or other wrongdoing by Platform employees either in Canada or China"
If he's really so worried about the threat to national security posed by the list of contact names, he should report it direct to the NSA.
"tamper with software being used by [NSA]" - that would be true wherever the software was written and regardless of who wrote it.
Presumably, the NSA has its own procedures for vetting and accepting new software - or are they really a bunch of innocents who just accept whatever they're given?
I prefer to have a truly excellent PalmOS *PDA* rather than a crappy one running some sort of cut-down Windows. The only possible advantage to an iPaq is that it "looks like" a Windows PC.
"Legacy" means "works"
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The term "legacy system" is now used to describe any piece of technology which actually works as opposed to "modern system" which describes things that might work.
It's at times like this that I take some comfort in not being american.
The DMCA is increasingly bringing the entire concept of Law into disrepute, challenging even the USPTO's unenviable reputation for crass stupidity.
How can anyone build a framework of laws which, on the one hand (anti-trust), tries to constrain monopolies and, on the other hand (DMCA), protects those very monopolies from the inadequacy of their own protection mechanisms?
As, I believe, I've said before, the DMCA is an absurd proposition in the first place, it appears to work as follows:-
Corporation X owns some intellectual property Y. X asserts either copyright and/or patent rights to Y thereby making it illegal for others to "steal". Not everyone else is law-abiding so X devises a technical mechanism Z to prevent theft. Some law-breakers are smarter than X and find a way round Z. The DMCA makes it illegal for the law breakers, who ignored the first law, to bypass Z.
Problem solved? Will all the law-breakers suddenly think "oh, this'll mean breaking two laws not one, so I won't do it!"
I don't think so. My only real worry though is that we'll probably have similar acts of legal stupidity here in the UK sooner or later.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a problem and you think Perl provides the solution. Now you have two problems.
Go Niners!
If you want to change behaviour using sticks rather than carrots you do need to use an appropriate stick. Hitting an elephant with a matchstick probably won't influence his behaviour much, hitting him with a telegraph pole might get his attention.
If Google was fined $1,000,000 every time one of their employees gets caught speeding, they'd pretty soon figure out how to prevent their employees speeding (or at least getting caught)
Large cluster of Raspberry Pis
That way your qualifications won't matter and won't get in the way
Not much of a sailor on the cruiser. According to TFA he saw the sub 100-200 yds ahead and ordered "all back". Should have been hard a port or starboard
Why would you consider that to be an example of "fair use"? Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law I get "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
The band in question wouldn't be "forbidden" to make the cover, they would simply need to agree licensing terms with the copyright holder. That [licensing] sounds perfectly fair and reasonable to me, your "form of fair use" sounds like simple theft.
This is certainly the way I read it. I watched the video and almost as soon as Coyne started I felt my hackles rise. For a "scientist" he made a pathetic and childish argument, a sneering rant in fact.
If Jerry Coyne's the best science can come up with I'm going back to worshipping trees.
that everyone's patent laws were brought sharply up to date by restricting the term to TWO YEARS instead of the hugely anachronistic 20.
My final contribution on this matter before retiring to the pub is:
1) I accept that US copyright law appears to employ the concept of a copy owner, with associated rights.
2) I withdraw my comments about the GPL.
3) I cite below the relevant sections of the relevant UK law "The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992"
New permitted acts in relation to computer programs
8. After section 50 insert--
Computer programs: lawful users
"Back up copies.
50A.--(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.
(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 50B and 50C a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program.
(3) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).
Decompilation.
50B.--(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program expressed in a low level language--
(a) to convert it into a version expressed in a higher level language, or
(b) incidentally in the course of so converting the program, to copy it,
(that is, to "decompile" it), provided that the conditions in subsection (2) are met.
(2) The conditions are that--
(a) it is necessary to decompile the program to obtain the information necessary to create an independent program which can be operated with the program decompiled or with another program ("the permitted objective"); and
(b) the information so obtained is not used for any purpose other than the permitted objective.
(3) In particular, the conditions in subsection (2) are not met if the lawful user--
(a) has readily available to him the information necessary to achieve the permitted objective;
(b) does not confine the decompiling to such acts as are necessary to achieve the permitted objective;
I'm sorry, my use of capitals has suggested too much weight given to the letter of the law as opposed to the concepts.
r icingretail.mspx/ It's hard to imagine that the physical media might be worth that or anyone might pay that to merely "own a copy". The only reasonable commodity trade surely is the right to use the software.
When you purchase an intrinsically physical item such as a book, the valuable commodity purchased is (mostly) the physical item itself. The user commonly derives the benefit of the book by reading it but there are other valuable uses: doorstop and table leg leveller being the obvious ones.
When you purchase a piece of software there are only two valuable uses: using it and learning from it. Some learning uses are simply by-products of normal use and can be treated as normal use; other techniques such as reverse engineering are generally outlawed one way or another.
Microsoft Windows XP Professional retails at $299. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/p
The concept of a Licence to Use is firmly, unquestionably, established both in UK and US legal jurisdictions and is the basis on which ALL software is licensed including under the GPL.
That is what you buy when you buy software from anyone, the Right to Use the software. The obvious exception to this rule would be if you purchased the Copyright itself.
Surely all that would be needed is a simple dialog box with [Yes] [No] and [Cancel] buttons over the question "Are you sure?", perhaps with a little warning about how dangerous guns are, every time the trigger is pulled.
With a larger screen and maybe a soundcard, it could popup a paperclip asking "I think you're trying to kill someone, would you like some help?"
Can it really be true?
In the 21st century, the legal definition of "sign" does indeed include some, not all, instances of "a few lines of text" in an email. I quote from paras 28 & 30 of the judgement.
"I have no doubt that if a party creates and sends an electronically created document then he will be treated as having signed it to the same extent that he would in law be treated as having signed a hard copy of the same document. The fact that the document is created electronically as opposed to as a hard copy can make no difference."
"If a party or a party's agent sending an e mail types his or her or his or her principal's name to the extent required or permitted by existing case law in the body of an e mail, then in my view that would be a sufficient signature for the purposes of Section 4"
1) Never believe anything anyone tells you: always test for yourself.
2) Always ask the dumb questions: is it switched on?
3) Reboot cures most things EXCEPT rm -r * when logged in as root
After that, things could get tricky.
The map has a perfectly clear copyright claim in the bottom left hand corner - what was Mr Bright thinking? Their notice is even clearer then his "iPodSubwayMaps.com is ©2005 Little Bill Productions"
This will give the EU a much needed opportunity to consider the issues properly with the benefit of major campaigning forces on BOTH sides of the arguments instead of just the big boys arguing for unlimited patentability.
Is a terrabyte hard drive. (Thats 1000 GB if you didn't know)
/., home of the nerds, we should know that a terabyte is 1024 GB or 2 to the power 40 bytes.
No it isn't! On
The ability to run linux straight from the CD with no low level hard disk interference may not be enough of itself to encourage investigation and/or take up of linux by Windows users but it certainly represents a leap forward.
Most Windows users are not computer nerds, they're just people who *use* computers - installing an operating system onto a hard disk, with or without risk to their existing setup, is just way beyond their skills or desires.
Speed issues can be helped out if not resolved by use of RAM disk as demonstrated by http://www.goosee.com/puppy/
"stressed that he had seen no evidence of espionage or other wrongdoing by Platform employees either in Canada or China"
If he's really so worried about the threat to national security posed by the list of contact names, he should report it direct to the NSA.
"tamper with software being used by [NSA]" - that would be true wherever the software was written and regardless of who wrote it.
Presumably, the NSA has its own procedures for vetting and accepting new software - or are they really a bunch of innocents who just accept whatever they're given?
I prefer to have a truly excellent PalmOS *PDA* rather than a crappy one running some sort of cut-down Windows. The only possible advantage to an iPaq is that it "looks like" a Windows PC.
The term "legacy system" is now used to describe any piece of technology which actually works as opposed to "modern system" which describes things that might work.
As with any other commercial enterprise, the one thing guaranteed to stop it is that it just doesn't pay.
If no-one ever responded to SPAM, it would die out pretty rapidly.
If it's still with us it means one of two things:-
1) It pays to send SPAM.
2) There is an endless supply of spammers who have yet to realise that it doesn't pay.
It's at times like this that I take some comfort in not being american.
The DMCA is increasingly bringing the entire concept of Law into disrepute, challenging even the USPTO's unenviable reputation for crass stupidity.
How can anyone build a framework of laws which, on the one hand (anti-trust), tries to constrain monopolies and, on the other hand (DMCA), protects those very monopolies from the inadequacy of their own protection mechanisms?
As, I believe, I've said before, the DMCA is an absurd proposition in the first place, it appears to work as follows:-
Corporation X owns some intellectual property Y.
X asserts either copyright and/or patent rights to Y thereby making it illegal for others to "steal".
Not everyone else is law-abiding so X devises a technical mechanism Z to prevent theft.
Some law-breakers are smarter than X and find a way round Z.
The DMCA makes it illegal for the law breakers, who ignored the first law, to bypass Z.
Problem solved? Will all the law-breakers suddenly think "oh, this'll mean breaking two laws not one, so I won't do it!"
I don't think so. My only real worry though is that we'll probably have similar acts of legal stupidity here in the UK sooner or later.