No matter your personal political opinions, this is seriously playing with fire. The Democrats engaged in this same kind of meddling during the Republican primary of 1980 to ensure the weaker extremist Regan got nominated. A large amount of what has happened to the USA in the intervening 30 years (good and bad) can be blamed on that collosal miscalculation.
No, the Bible most clearly says why *and* how. It says God spontaneously created all of the animals and Adam, and then created Eve from Adam's rib - this all about 10000 years ago.
No, it does not. That 10,000 year number is nowhere in the Bible. Some people came up with it themselves based on a whole bunch of assumptions.
Also, the Bible contains at least three different creation stories (two in Genesis and one at the beginning of John). So nothing is really "clear" there.
If you are going to make blanket statements about the Bible, please first know what you are talking about.
Interestingly (considering the evangelical protestant base of the Republican party), there is really only one viable candidate in the race right now who is a protestant Christian: Barak Obama.
Most of this should be fairly easily testable with statistical methods. Do people living in low-sunlight environments (eg: perpetually foggy or cloudy areas, or close to the poles during the dark months) show a higher incidence of all the same "aging" problems than their age would imply?
If they own all the copyrights, they can.
However, they would indeed have to remove anything GPLed they don't own the rights to, and the existing released Open Source version would still be out there. Nothing at all would stop anybody from forking off the latest Open Source baseline. Hardware vendors would surely do that.
So, not really, no.
Do evil for pay, and leave it at the office while pretending to be a nice person to your kids and wife. And that was one of the more reputable law firms in town
There's his problem right there. Big law firms are just like any other big business...completely sociopathic. If he wants to keep to his own morals he needs to hang out his own shingle. This is quite easy to do for a lawyer.
Quite. Now that you've set the goal, it could well happen twice as fast as it would have otherwise.
So now instead of it happening never, it will happen in half that time!
The problem is Watson only provides questions, not answers. Putting it on people's phones would create a real-life version of those Bing commercials where everyone's walking arount quoting facts into their phones in hopes of getting the right question back out.
This isn't for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or third world countries.
Go try telling that to Arab activists (eg: Iyad ElBaghdadi). They are livid about this.
There appears to be a "blackout" boycott effort being organized for tomorrow.
But it is. They could put his speech in the public domain.
No, they can't. There's no provision in current USA copyright law for releasing a work to the Public Domain early.
Re:MLK Jr. himself sued to prevent use of his spee
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 1
No they didn't.
Well, that was the lawyer's story. Perhaps he wasn't telling the truth, but the fact is that he was there, and you AFAIK weren't. So frankly, I'm going with his assertion over yours.
No it wouldn't. In fact, this is painting a rather nasty picture of MLK as a guy who gave less of a shit about civil rights than he did about his personal fortune. He's not someone to hold up as noble.
I don't suppose you read the part where I said his lawyer did this? MLK himself probably never would have thought to do it, which is why the lawyer took it upon himself to do it immediately. And frankly as a lawyer, looking out for his client's interests like this is his job.
Frankly, if I'm in a crowd with a video camera, there is no way somebody making a speech should own my fucking recording any more than the old mad guy with a "the end is near" sign whose ramblings I filmed the other day should own that recording. You say it in public, you're benefitting from its publicity - it's public, not yours. That seems like a fair deal to me
For the most part, I agree with this... today. Dang near everybody has a video camera on their person. "Publishing" something is now practically free.
But you have to put yourself back in 1963 for a minute. Back then cameras were heavy expensive peices of equipment that required lots of wired-up power. Nobody would bother to drag out and set up and use one unless there was a buck in it somehow. Audio recording equipment was only a little less so. Printing was also expensive, and best left to those who could afford to buy their ink by the barrel. There were no photcopiers, laser-printers, etc.
The second thing to realise is that copyright law back then was a lot closer to what the founders intended. It only lasted a couple of decades at most, and you had to go out of your way to register for it.
The third thing you should have in your head is the financial relationship between the races in 1963. Whenever there was actual money to be made from black culture, this country had a long illustrious history of having the white establishment swoop in and suction out all the money for themselves. This is why the lawyer put the copyright on so quickly. A lawyer in this situation bascially had two options: join in the looting (sadly the typical response), or do the right thing and protect his client's interests.
So what the lawyer thought he was doing was keeping his client's work from only enriching a bunch of rich white media types for a few years. He wasn't trying to lock the text of the speech away from the public forever. The US Congress has subsequently made that happen.
Re:MLK Jr. himself sued to prevent use of his spee
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 1
If you want the exact words, obviously it would be best to dig up the interview on npr.org somehow. The sense I got from it was that it was more a concern (at least on the lawyer's part) that some folks were liable to make a lot of money off that speech, and he didn't want his client getting ripped off. I'm thinking newspapers, audio recordings, etc.
The bit about him releasing the changed verion turned out to be rather important though. I heard from other interviews that the whole "I Have a Dream" coda wasn't even going to be in the original speech. Supposedly he was just getting geared up when one of his supporters up by the podium (Mahalia Jackson?) who had heard him working up the "I Have a Dream" part at other speaking engagements asked him to do it there. If you listen carefully to live audio recordings, you can hear her say "Tell them about the Dream, Martin" right before he launches into it.
So if the lawyer hadn't released the updated transcript, the whole "I have a dream" portion wouldn't have been covered.
Re:MLK Jr. himself sued to prevent use of his spee
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I heard an interview on NPR with MLK's lawyer about this a year or two ago. He claimed that he not only put a copyright notice on the speech immediately (in those quaint times you had to do that to get a copyright), but when MLK changed the speech on the podium a bit, he made sure the press was released a copyright version of the new modified text.
It actually made quite a bit of sense at the time. Everybody knew even at the time it was going to be a historic speech, and this prevented anybody else from profiting off of reproducing it without giving the author a cut. Considering what he was engaged in doing at the time, it would be tough to come up with a more noble use of existing copyright law.
The problem comes nearly 50 years later, when the author is long dead, has his own frigging monument on the mall in DC, and this speech inarguably belongs in the Public Domain. Yet it isn't, and may never be if trends continue.
Personally, I don't believe in design by focus groups. If you want a horrible design where a million confusing badly-designed functions are all crammed into one page/screen, then a focus group is the way to go.
Users are really good at knowing what annoys them, but they generally don't understand what the good available solutions are. As a consequence, they will invariably insist on slight tweaks to the way they have always done things, and that every new function gets added to their favorite screen, page, or menu. The end result is invariably the UI equivalent of the worst spaghetti-code hacks.
A really good design requires someone with the insight to see what the basic problems to be addressed are, what all the available tools are on your platform to solve such problems, and to design the entire system around that. No committe will ever be capable of that feat.
What you need to take from users is what tasks they need done, and how they are used to doing them. The design then needs to be created by a designer, who has the insight to see what could be made easier for them, and will generally act as their advocate. This is the one thing I felt Steve Jobs always got right.
Nobody in this country takes corporate contributions either. That's sooo old fashioned.
These days, all the cool kids instead have "SuperPAC"s run by "former" staffers that take unlimited amounts of corporate contributions. These in turn blanket the airwaves with vicious attack ads which the candidate himself has of course no control over, and has not personally seen. But he understands they bring up some very interesting points about his opponent...
The maintenance engineering union is seizing on any little thing it can to show that maintenance by "other" parties is deficient. They use the same scare tactic equally against Boeing, Airbus and Bombardier (the Q fleet), its just the last few high profile incidents have been Airbus
That would actually make a lot of sense. I understand work-to-rule (the following of every rule and regulation to the letter, preferably the assenine ones) is a favorite tactic of Aussie labor unions. If the union in question is currently engaged in a dispute, that would easily explain this.
Slashdot Mirror
Shame I don't have mod points today.
No matter your personal political opinions, this is seriously playing with fire. The Democrats engaged in this same kind of meddling during the Republican primary of 1980 to ensure the weaker extremist Regan got nominated. A large amount of what has happened to the USA in the intervening 30 years (good and bad) can be blamed on that collosal miscalculation.
No, the Bible most clearly says why *and* how. It says God spontaneously created all of the animals and Adam, and then created Eve from Adam's rib - this all about 10000 years ago.
No, it does not. That 10,000 year number is nowhere in the Bible. Some people came up with it themselves based on a whole bunch of assumptions.
Also, the Bible contains at least three different creation stories (two in Genesis and one at the beginning of John). So nothing is really "clear" there.
If you are going to make blanket statements about the Bible, please first know what you are talking about.
Interestingly (considering the evangelical protestant base of the Republican party), there is really only one viable candidate in the race right now who is a protestant Christian: Barak Obama.
...with no cellphone.
Most of this should be fairly easily testable with statistical methods. Do people living in low-sunlight environments (eg: perpetually foggy or cloudy areas, or close to the poles during the dark months) show a higher incidence of all the same "aging" problems than their age would imply?
But hey, you know if you frack properly, you don't get any problems.
No. More like "if everyone fracks properly, other innocent people don't get any problems".
Perhaps when phrased properly, you might suddenly see the problem here.
If they own all the copyrights, they can. However, they would indeed have to remove anything GPLed they don't own the rights to, and the existing released Open Source version would still be out there. Nothing at all would stop anybody from forking off the latest Open Source baseline. Hardware vendors would surely do that. So, not really, no.
Do evil for pay, and leave it at the office while pretending to be a nice person to your kids and wife. And that was one of the more reputable law firms in town
There's his problem right there. Big law firms are just like any other big business...completely sociopathic. If he wants to keep to his own morals he needs to hang out his own shingle. This is quite easy to do for a lawyer.
Awesome! Land it on the surface of the Sun.
Quite. Now that you've set the goal, it could well happen twice as fast as it would have otherwise. So now instead of it happening never, it will happen in half that time!
The problem is Watson only provides questions, not answers. Putting it on people's phones would create a real-life version of those Bing commercials where everyone's walking arount quoting facts into their phones in hopes of getting the right question back out.
...that weeds out everyone wealthy enough to bring a gift.
This isn't for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or third world countries.
Go try telling that to Arab activists (eg: Iyad ElBaghdadi). They are livid about this. There appears to be a "blackout" boycott effort being organized for tomorrow.
Or, if you are still a little squeamish, send *me* all that info which I won't re-share, but I'll report my results. My email is "not obfuscated" so
Sadly, your email is a Yahoo email, so you won't receive it today...
But it is. They could put his speech in the public domain.
No, they can't. There's no provision in current USA copyright law for releasing a work to the Public Domain early.
No they didn't.
Well, that was the lawyer's story. Perhaps he wasn't telling the truth, but the fact is that he was there, and you AFAIK weren't. So frankly, I'm going with his assertion over yours.
No it wouldn't. In fact, this is painting a rather nasty picture of MLK as a guy who gave less of a shit about civil rights than he did about his personal fortune. He's not someone to hold up as noble.
I don't suppose you read the part where I said his lawyer did this? MLK himself probably never would have thought to do it, which is why the lawyer took it upon himself to do it immediately. And frankly as a lawyer, looking out for his client's interests like this is his job.
Frankly, if I'm in a crowd with a video camera, there is no way somebody making a speech should own my fucking recording any more than the old mad guy with a "the end is near" sign whose ramblings I filmed the other day should own that recording. You say it in public, you're benefitting from its publicity - it's public, not yours. That seems like a fair deal to me
For the most part, I agree with this ... today. Dang near everybody has a video camera on their person. "Publishing" something is now practically free.
But you have to put yourself back in 1963 for a minute. Back then cameras were heavy expensive peices of equipment that required lots of wired-up power. Nobody would bother to drag out and set up and use one unless there was a buck in it somehow. Audio recording equipment was only a little less so. Printing was also expensive, and best left to those who could afford to buy their ink by the barrel. There were no photcopiers, laser-printers, etc.
The second thing to realise is that copyright law back then was a lot closer to what the founders intended. It only lasted a couple of decades at most, and you had to go out of your way to register for it.
The third thing you should have in your head is the financial relationship between the races in 1963. Whenever there was actual money to be made from black culture, this country had a long illustrious history of having the white establishment swoop in and suction out all the money for themselves. This is why the lawyer put the copyright on so quickly. A lawyer in this situation bascially had two options: join in the looting (sadly the typical response), or do the right thing and protect his client's interests.
So what the lawyer thought he was doing was keeping his client's work from only enriching a bunch of rich white media types for a few years. He wasn't trying to lock the text of the speech away from the public forever. The US Congress has subsequently made that happen.
If you want the exact words, obviously it would be best to dig up the interview on npr.org somehow. The sense I got from it was that it was more a concern (at least on the lawyer's part) that some folks were liable to make a lot of money off that speech, and he didn't want his client getting ripped off. I'm thinking newspapers, audio recordings, etc.
The bit about him releasing the changed verion turned out to be rather important though. I heard from other interviews that the whole "I Have a Dream" coda wasn't even going to be in the original speech. Supposedly he was just getting geared up when one of his supporters up by the podium (Mahalia Jackson?) who had heard him working up the "I Have a Dream" part at other speaking engagements asked him to do it there. If you listen carefully to live audio recordings, you can hear her say "Tell them about the Dream, Martin" right before he launches into it.
So if the lawyer hadn't released the updated transcript, the whole "I have a dream" portion wouldn't have been covered.
I heard an interview on NPR with MLK's lawyer about this a year or two ago. He claimed that he not only put a copyright notice on the speech immediately (in those quaint times you had to do that to get a copyright), but when MLK changed the speech on the podium a bit, he made sure the press was released a copyright version of the new modified text.
It actually made quite a bit of sense at the time. Everybody knew even at the time it was going to be a historic speech, and this prevented anybody else from profiting off of reproducing it without giving the author a cut. Considering what he was engaged in doing at the time, it would be tough to come up with a more noble use of existing copyright law.
The problem comes nearly 50 years later, when the author is long dead, has his own frigging monument on the mall in DC, and this speech inarguably belongs in the Public Domain. Yet it isn't, and may never be if trends continue.
Personally, I don't believe in design by focus groups. If you want a horrible design where a million confusing badly-designed functions are all crammed into one page/screen, then a focus group is the way to go.
Users are really good at knowing what annoys them, but they generally don't understand what the good available solutions are. As a consequence, they will invariably insist on slight tweaks to the way they have always done things, and that every new function gets added to their favorite screen, page, or menu. The end result is invariably the UI equivalent of the worst spaghetti-code hacks.
A really good design requires someone with the insight to see what the basic problems to be addressed are, what all the available tools are on your platform to solve such problems, and to design the entire system around that. No committe will ever be capable of that feat.
What you need to take from users is what tasks they need done, and how they are used to doing them. The design then needs to be created by a designer, who has the insight to see what could be made easier for them, and will generally act as their advocate. This is the one thing I felt Steve Jobs always got right.
not even FB can target ads to me that I care about. I'm a married man so I get ads about meeting women and ovulation tests.
You clearly have more faith in your own behavior than Facebook does. What exactly have you been clicking on?
Nobody in this country takes corporate contributions either. That's sooo old fashioned.
These days, all the cool kids instead have "SuperPAC"s run by "former" staffers that take unlimited amounts of corporate contributions. These in turn blanket the airwaves with vicious attack ads which the candidate himself has of course no control over, and has not personally seen. But he understands they bring up some very interesting points about his opponent...
You folks in Canada are so cute.
If you think both parties are doing this equally, you really haven't been paying attention.
The rights that are associated with marriage such as health benefits, inheritance, etc. can be assigned in a legal agreement.
It is. The government calls it "marriage".
The maintenance engineering union is seizing on any little thing it can to show that maintenance by "other" parties is deficient. They use the same scare tactic equally against Boeing, Airbus and Bombardier (the Q fleet), its just the last few high profile incidents have been Airbus
That would actually make a lot of sense. I understand work-to-rule (the following of every rule and regulation to the letter, preferably the assenine ones) is a favorite tactic of Aussie labor unions. If the union in question is currently engaged in a dispute, that would easily explain this.
Roughly the same credit Iraqis get for Wheat.