I expect there to be Internet-spawned neighborhoods, just like there used to be various ghettos (in a good way). There was the Italian ghetto (Little Italy), the Chinese ghetto (Chinatown), the Japanese ghetto (Japantown), the Koren ghetto (Koreatown), the Norwegian ghetto (Bay Ridge), a gay ghetto (the Castro), and there will be a Slashdot ghetto etc.
Rediff has been experimenting with a gateway between XMPP and their Bol chat server (Bol means "Talk" in Hindi, so it's a Chat chat server, but then again I once lived in Villa Chateau Apartments). I have no idea if it's publicly available, though. If anybody cares, drop me an email.
Copyright is a bargain, not an actual "right". A "right" is something you could stop other people from doing to you. Since you can't stop Alice from copying to Betty, nor Betty copying to Cynthia, you have no "right" to prevent copying. No, copyright is a *bargain*. The public gives up something (the right to copy) for a LIMITED period of time as an incentive for creators to create. Creators have unilaterally abandoned their end of the bargain by seeking to control copying forever. The public is, IN RESPONSE TO THE ACTIONS OF CREATORS, taking back its right to copy.
Don't like that? Uphold your end of the bargain and see what happens.
What's the "N" word? Do you mean NIGGER? Or do you mean NOLDEMORT? Why are there words we can't say? Thinking that words intrinsically have power is a pre-scientific idea. It's superstitious.
If you encourage people to use your work, and then try to pull the rug out from them by revoking their license, you can sue them for "reliance". Judges don't like that business model.
No band subsequent to Led Zeppelin has been better than them. The record companies are simply discovering that even with young people discovering Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin isn't producing any new good music, and neither are any of the current bands. And you can only sell one complete copy of the entire Led Zeppelin corpus to everyone.
Certifications provide a baseline clue as to whether or not your has proven at some point to meet certain minimum requirements of knowledge and/or skill.
Were you born gullible or did you have a skepticion performed? Your theory is a great theory (it's the one promulgated by the certifier, so it's suspect for that reason alone) but it doesn't explain why doctors (certified by the government) need to pay malpractice insurance.
Sorry about the gullible remark, but I just HAD to make up the word skepticion.
Please don't use my state as a paragon of freedom. Oh, wait, it's *security* you want? Try moving to some nice secure country where everything is prohibited, including crime.
Certifications don't protect the public. They protect the certified against competition.
It's open once published
on
RTF Vs. OOXML
·
· Score: 1
There are two kinds of vendor standards -- the one in which the vendor publishes what they've done, and the other in which the vendor publishes what they will do. This article contends it's the first. Is OOXML the first or the second? We'll see.
But *do* they monetize the long tail? That would entail keeping each and every piece of music ever published by a RIAA member available in CD form. Do you really think that's likely to happen? No, they'd have to accept digital distribution of everything in order to accommodate that. And the RIAA fights digital distribution arm and leg.
Too many Congress-critters are, for all intents and purposes, owned by the lobbying organizations that benefit from prolonged copyright limits.
So, tell me, how do you feel about Hillary-care? Do you think that anything in this process will be different if the government runs our healthcare system?
No one is appropriating your own creative works. You still have your copy, right? The proposed solution just says that you don't have the right to reach into other people's pockets and control *their* copy beyond "limited times".
Errrr, the Constitution allows the federal government:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
their respective writings and discoveries;
Limited times. The current copyright period is already unconstitutional. You can't "take" something which people don't rightfully own.
That would be good. That way, when a work is very popular and profitable, a company can choose to keep paying a higher fee to keep control, and the unpopular unprofitable works will go into the public domain faster.
Copyright isn't a right, it's a bargain. We give up the right to copy for a limited time (just as the Constitution requires, LIMITED) in exchange for getting the content at all. The RIAA broke the bargain by asking for unlimited time, and we've been breaking our end of it in return.
Boy, you're a rather trusting person! The more complicated the barcode, the larger the number, the less likely it is that the software will have no security lapses. Imagine a barcode which you present to the reader that gives you a remote shell via its network? Or which modifies the barcode software so that it gives your code the privileges of the last person to come through?
Holy Mary, Mother of Jesus! The only reason Mumbai transportation works is because about half the people are riding these tiny little motorbikes. Now, picture them consuming an entire car's worth of space. You wouldn't have just gridlock, you'd have the entire road space consumed with vehicles with no space between them to move. Yer talkin' about doubling or tripling everybody's commute time.
According to his Wikipedia article, no, he hasn't done anything. Taught a few courses here and there. Recorded an album. So, basically, he's an intellectual, come to tell us ignorant sluts who are actually DOING THINGS how to do them correctly. Feh. Intellectuals are the death of every civilization.
What has Jaron Lanier produced? Is this fellow famous for being famous or has he actually done something closed source against which we can compare our efforts?
Slashdot Mirror
How are we going to save the world when there are selfish people like you who value your own time higher than other people's commute time?
Does Firefox implement <sarcasm> rendering yet?
Indeed .... I've made a pointer to the Macaulay speech on my blog: http://blog.russnelson.com/economics/macaulay-on-copyright.html
I expect there to be Internet-spawned neighborhoods, just like there used to be various ghettos (in a good way). There was the Italian ghetto (Little Italy), the Chinese ghetto (Chinatown), the Japanese ghetto (Japantown), the Koren ghetto (Koreatown), the Norwegian ghetto (Bay Ridge), a gay ghetto (the Castro), and there will be a Slashdot ghetto etc.
Adolescence of P-1
Rediff has been experimenting with a gateway between XMPP and their Bol chat server (Bol means "Talk" in Hindi, so it's a Chat chat server, but then again I once lived in Villa Chateau Apartments). I have no idea if it's publicly available, though. If anybody cares, drop me an email.
Copyright is a bargain, not an actual "right". A "right" is something you could stop other people from doing to you. Since you can't stop Alice from copying to Betty, nor Betty copying to Cynthia, you have no "right" to prevent copying. No, copyright is a *bargain*. The public gives up something (the right to copy) for a LIMITED period of time as an incentive for creators to create. Creators have unilaterally abandoned their end of the bargain by seeking to control copying forever. The public is, IN RESPONSE TO THE ACTIONS OF CREATORS, taking back its right to copy.
Don't like that? Uphold your end of the bargain and see what happens.
I agree that you have described reliance correctly, but ... you haven't disagreed with what I wrote.
What's the "N" word? Do you mean NIGGER? Or do you mean NOLDEMORT? Why are there words we can't say? Thinking that words intrinsically have power is a pre-scientific idea. It's superstitious.
"insecure" is bad. "open" is good. It's an "open wifi network" not an "insecure wifi network."
If you encourage people to use your work, and then try to pull the rug out from them by revoking their license, you can sue them for "reliance". Judges don't like that business model.
No band subsequent to Led Zeppelin has been better than them. The record companies are simply discovering that even with young people discovering Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin isn't producing any new good music, and neither are any of the current bands. And you can only sell one complete copy of the entire Led Zeppelin corpus to everyone.
Modern music sucks.
Were you born gullible or did you have a skepticion performed? Your theory is a great theory (it's the one promulgated by the certifier, so it's suspect for that reason alone) but it doesn't explain why doctors (certified by the government) need to pay malpractice insurance.
Sorry about the gullible remark, but I just HAD to make up the word skepticion.
They can have my ping client when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Please don't use my state as a paragon of freedom. Oh, wait, it's *security* you want? Try moving to some nice secure country where everything is prohibited, including crime.
Certifications don't protect the public. They protect the certified against competition.
There are two kinds of vendor standards -- the one in which the vendor publishes what they've done, and the other in which the vendor publishes what they will do. This article contends it's the first. Is OOXML the first or the second? We'll see.
But *do* they monetize the long tail? That would entail keeping each and every piece of music ever published by a RIAA member available in CD form. Do you really think that's likely to happen? No, they'd have to accept digital distribution of everything in order to accommodate that. And the RIAA fights digital distribution arm and leg.
So, tell me, how do you feel about Hillary-care? Do you think that anything in this process will be different if the government runs our healthcare system?
No one is appropriating your own creative works. You still have your copy, right? The proposed solution just says that you don't have the right to reach into other people's pockets and control *their* copy beyond "limited times".
Limited times. The current copyright period is already unconstitutional. You can't "take" something which people don't rightfully own.
That would be good. That way, when a work is very popular and profitable, a company can choose to keep paying a higher fee to keep control, and the unpopular unprofitable works will go into the public domain faster.
Copyright isn't a right, it's a bargain. We give up the right to copy for a limited time (just as the Constitution requires, LIMITED) in exchange for getting the content at all. The RIAA broke the bargain by asking for unlimited time, and we've been breaking our end of it in return.
Boy, you're a rather trusting person! The more complicated the barcode, the larger the number, the less likely it is that the software will have no security lapses. Imagine a barcode which you present to the reader that gives you a remote shell via its network? Or which modifies the barcode software so that it gives your code the privileges of the last person to come through?
Holy Mary, Mother of Jesus! The only reason Mumbai transportation works is because about half the people are riding these tiny little motorbikes. Now, picture them consuming an entire car's worth of space. You wouldn't have just gridlock, you'd have the entire road space consumed with vehicles with no space between them to move. Yer talkin' about doubling or tripling everybody's commute time.
I predict horrific disaster.
According to his Wikipedia article, no, he hasn't done anything. Taught a few courses here and there. Recorded an album. So, basically, he's an intellectual, come to tell us ignorant sluts who are actually DOING THINGS how to do them correctly. Feh. Intellectuals are the death of every civilization.
What has Jaron Lanier produced? Is this fellow famous for being famous or has he actually done something closed source against which we can compare our efforts?