Firstly, I'm actually English, so this may explain my slightly scewed perspective.
I would not expect every library up and down the country to hold every single book written by every single author, its simply a matter of shelve space in my eyes.
You would except libraries to hold books according to how likely it is that people would want to read them. Which would include contraversial books and those someone or other wants banned. People will want to read such books if for no other reason that to see what the fuss is all about. Though libraries can face problems with such books being especially prone to being stolen or defaced.
Regarding the governor making a decision, if every decision depended upon consultation with everyone involved nothing would work.
You are assuming that everyone is just like you. Please don't. Why should a library be limited to "publically accepted" works?
Problem is that "publically acceptable" can be very varied or there can be a vocal minority claiming to represent "the public" whilst doing no such thing. IIRC there was a case on a cable porn channel overturning objections by carrying out a survey of what was being lent from video libraries in the area.
Public libraries are there to serve the public. This includes serving minorities and individuals, not just the majority.
But it would be more accurate to say that the US government hates other countries' freedoms.
This is probably a simplification. It's more the case that the US Government is prefectly prepared to trample on other people's freedoms (including US Citizens) where the interests of big business are involved.
That's why they use military and economic muscle and deception to coerce other countries into passing legislation that removes freedoms from the citizens.
That's actually one of the "nicer" ways the US Government has gone about things since the late 19th century. Other methods have included invasion and backing terrorists to overthrow governments. Many of these governments have been democracies who have put the interests of their own citizens above those of foreign business.
More than several of the laws passed in the US are done so because "some random country" does it.
Whilst the countries may be random are the laws? Are we possibly seeing fight between national governments and transnational corporations for power. Where the governments arn't putting that much effort into fighting.
Just hypothetically, I wonder if the entire rest of the world could collectively survive a cessation of all trade with the USA? And could the USA survive it?
In pure economic terms the US is a net importer on most goods. The problems are more of a military nature. The US would be placed in a similar position to Imperial Japan, there would also be the risk of a second US civil war.
here in Germany (all of Europe, in fact), most wireless phones operate using the DECT standard at 1.9 GHz. At least those don't interfere with any Wi-Fi equipment (afaik)... how come your phones are using a different standard at 2.4/5.8 and not DECT?
Probably a case of Not Invented Here syndrome. Which is so notorious with North American telecoms that the manufacturers of telephone switching systems even divide their product lines into "NANP" and "rest of the planet"...
a lot of disney stuff is made from expired copyright. If disney wants to have a ban on expiry, then it should be retro-active, paying royalties to the descendants of the brothers grimm, or whoever else came before them.
All the Grimms did was collect existing stories. You'd need to look back a lot further to find the original authors (and their descendants.)
This statement is VERY consistent with my experience of non-geeks. I actually DO socialize with non-geeks on a regular basis (I don't even refer to them as non-geeks...thats just for the benefit of slashdot). They are utterly unaware of these intellectual property issues,
Is that suprising considering that the "mainstream media" is closely connected with the same entities who want infinite copyright...
and they DO all blindly accept the notion that content creators should have complete control of content use until the end of time, and so on.
If it were really the case that content creators had complete control over content use corporations like Disney would have very little power. Since they'd have to be very careful not to upset the writers, actors, artists, animators, etc who actually create the movies they distribute.
Corporations "own" the works, and the works remain "protected" by copyright. Meanwhile, works that are not economically viable to be "sold" by the "owners" simply become unavailable, however the "protection" of copyright makes it illegal for individuals to simply reproduce these works themselves. Today it's acetate films rotting in vaults, and books that have "fallen out of print" on acidic paper. Tomorrow it will be video and audio "locked up" in encryption algorithms that may well be trivilly easy to break, but are legally protected.
The latter probably also stored on media which are more ephemeral than the copyright. At the same time you have copyright libraries throwing things away, because they don't have the storage space, combined with the administrative nightmare of the date when anything actually becomes public domain bein indeterminate.
Corporations are doing what corporations are supposed to do-- returning value for shareholders.
They don't even always do that, when you have profitable companies which rarely (if ever) pay dividends... Anyway the whole concept of a "corporation" is, like "copyright" an entirely manmade invention.
Disney also suggests copyright be extended to an indefinite amount of time.
Because, as we all know, once something falls into the public domain, no one will want to keep it around anymore and it will forever be lost.
Whereas it's actually more likely that something will be lost because of excessive copyright terms combined with the "clock" not even starting until an author dies. Which makes the original function of copyright libraries, ensuring that copies of everything published actually made it into the public domain, virtually impossible.
Assuming that EU patent law bears some similarity to US law and that the body of software patents bears some similarity, the key to destroying poorly issued software patents is prior art.
Except that the only way of getting rid of patents in the US is through expensive litigation. As opposed to being able to make an application to the patent office to void a patent they have issued.
The problem isn't software patents. The problem is that some software patents are just rediculous and they should be given to someone that at least tries to implement the idea.
This "some" appears to be a rather sizable proportion. Added to that the process of issuing these patents is fundermentally broken in that once issued it takes a court to overturn one. Even if it should never have been issued in the first place.Just imagine, you spend years coming up with something that ou think is great. Some big company sees it and copies it. They have the money to promote it and they corner the market. You've wasted a couple of years without any return.
Thing is that if a big company copies your invention they can probably out litigate you, even if you have a patent. Especially in places such as the US where litigating in person often appears to be greatly disliked...
This is a nice clear-cut example of software patents stifling the market.
Even prior to such patents actually even existing.
And one would hope that this little lesson might help people re-evaluate the idea of having software patents.
First you need to identify who is actually pushing for the EU to allow software patents. As well as if the German government is likely to go along with in anyway. Which is presumably why Munich is consulting with the Federal Government.
Why should companies respect the government's law if the government see fit to just rip the patent if it gets in the government's way.
Governments quite frequently either write laws which allow them to opt out or ammend laws which would otherwise get in their way.
Either the government play by the market rules or the government has no reason to exist.
Patents are not "market rules" they are "government rules" in the first place. "Markets" functioned perfectly well for thousands of years without patents.
In any case, Microsoft provides NO MORE WARRANTY than any Linux distributor might for a retail box or ISO download of their product. That being said, a major corporate or government enterprise would negotiate a special contract with the vendor.
Governments also have the ability to make and change laws.
Closed source is better for patent-threatened users because there are contracts in place and because of "fitness for use" laws.
Except that proprietary software licences typically dismiss such laws.
Open Source is great, but as the licenses make clear, *you* wind up holding all the liabilities. There aren't any warranties, and there's no implied fitness for use.
Much the same with proprietary software, read a few EULAs...
City of Münich may not have the ability to be able to spend that much of tax payers money on licensing.
But they may have the power to say "either you licence this to us for free or you do no business here". Failing that the German Federal Government is perfectly capable of saying "You have no patent (in Germany)." Patents only have meaning in the first place because Governments say they have meaning.
Assuming the problem is knowing where these people are. It took months for that poor Cuban boy to be returned home. Even though everyone, including CNN, knew exactly where he was.
My first reaction to this post was to disagree strongly with it. But when I lived in the states briefly, I had to be finger-printed to get a drivers license. And they are pretty universal, even to having a non-drivers drivers license.
This being something of an oxymoron. Why should someone who dosn't drive need a document which states what catagory of vehicles someone can drive. Only if this document is being abused for other purposes...
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, I'm actually English, so this may explain my slightly scewed perspective.
I would not expect every library up and down the country to hold every single book written by every single author, its simply a matter of shelve space in my eyes.
You would except libraries to hold books according to how likely it is that people would want to read them. Which would include contraversial books and those someone or other wants banned. People will want to read such books if for no other reason that to see what the fuss is all about. Though libraries can face problems with such books being especially prone to being stolen or defaced.
Regarding the governor making a decision, if every decision depended upon consultation with everyone involved nothing would work.
Politicans don't tend to make good librarians.
You are assuming that everyone is just like you. Please don't. Why should a library be limited to "publically accepted" works?
Problem is that "publically acceptable" can be very varied or there can be a vocal minority claiming to represent "the public" whilst doing no such thing. IIRC there was a case on a cable porn channel overturning objections by carrying out a survey of what was being lent from video libraries in the area.
Public libraries are there to serve the public. This includes serving minorities and individuals, not just the majority.
Or those who make most noise...
If I go out and stand on a soap box, or publish a newspaper, and everyone chooses to ignore me, no rights have been violated.
On the other hand if you try and force people to "listen" then their rights most certainly are being violated.
It's just like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no a right to happiness.
Nor is there a right to profit either...
People seem to confuse Freedom of Speech with the Freedom to be heard
Not just actual people either, consider the big fuss some "corporate people" make commercial skipping...
But it would be more accurate to say that the US government hates other countries' freedoms.
This is probably a simplification. It's more the case that the US Government is prefectly prepared to trample on other people's freedoms (including US Citizens) where the interests of big business are involved.
That's why they use military and economic muscle and deception to coerce other countries into passing legislation that removes freedoms from the citizens.
That's actually one of the "nicer" ways the US Government has gone about things since the late 19th century. Other methods have included invasion and backing terrorists to overthrow governments.
Many of these governments have been democracies who have put the interests of their own citizens above those of foreign business.
More than several of the laws passed in the US are done so because "some random country" does it.
Whilst the countries may be random are the laws? Are we possibly seeing fight between national governments and transnational corporations for power. Where the governments arn't putting that much effort into fighting.
Just hypothetically, I wonder if the entire rest of the world could collectively survive a cessation of all trade with the USA? And could the USA survive it?
In pure economic terms the US is a net importer on most goods.
The problems are more of a military nature. The US would be placed in a similar position to Imperial Japan, there would also be the risk of a second US civil war.
here in Germany (all of Europe, in fact), most wireless phones operate using the DECT standard at 1.9 GHz. At least those don't interfere with any Wi-Fi equipment (afaik)... how come your phones are using a different standard at 2.4/5.8 and not DECT?
Probably a case of Not Invented Here syndrome. Which is so notorious with North American telecoms that the manufacturers of telephone switching systems even divide their product lines into "NANP" and "rest of the planet"...
All human perception is done through analog systems, and the brain itself is an analog instrument,
Really? I think you'll find that nerves and nurones are digital.
a lot of disney stuff is made from expired copyright. If disney wants to have a ban on expiry, then it should be retro-active, paying royalties to the descendants of the brothers grimm, or whoever else came before them.
All the Grimms did was collect existing stories. You'd need to look back a lot further to find the original authors (and their descendants.)
This statement is VERY consistent with my experience of non-geeks. I actually DO socialize with non-geeks on a regular basis (I don't even refer to them as non-geeks...thats just for the benefit of slashdot). They are utterly unaware of these intellectual property issues,
Is that suprising considering that the "mainstream media" is closely connected with the same entities who want infinite copyright...
and they DO all blindly accept the notion that content creators should have complete control of content use until the end of time, and so on.
If it were really the case that content creators had complete control over content use corporations like Disney would have very little power. Since they'd have to be very careful not to upset the writers, actors, artists, animators, etc who actually create the movies they distribute.
Corporations "own" the works, and the works remain "protected" by copyright. Meanwhile, works that are not economically viable to be "sold" by the "owners" simply become unavailable, however the "protection" of copyright makes it illegal for individuals to simply reproduce these works themselves. Today it's acetate films rotting in vaults, and books that have "fallen out of print" on acidic paper. Tomorrow it will be video and audio "locked up" in encryption algorithms that may well be trivilly easy to break, but are legally protected.
The latter probably also stored on media which are more ephemeral than the copyright. At the same time you have copyright libraries throwing things away, because they don't have the storage space, combined with the administrative nightmare of the date when anything actually becomes public domain bein indeterminate.
Corporations are doing what corporations are supposed to do-- returning value for shareholders.
They don't even always do that, when you have profitable companies which rarely (if ever) pay dividends... Anyway the whole concept of a "corporation" is, like "copyright" an entirely manmade invention.
Disney also suggests copyright be extended to an indefinite amount of time.
Because, as we all know, once something falls into the public domain, no one will want to keep it around anymore and it will forever be lost.
Whereas it's actually more likely that something will be lost because of excessive copyright terms combined with the "clock" not even starting until an author dies. Which makes the original function of copyright libraries, ensuring that copies of everything published actually made it into the public domain, virtually impossible.
Assuming that EU patent law bears some similarity to US law and that the body of software patents bears some similarity, the key to destroying poorly issued software patents is prior art.
Except that the only way of getting rid of patents in the US is through expensive litigation.
As opposed to being able to make an application to the patent office to void a patent they have issued.
The problem isn't software patents. The problem is that some software patents are just rediculous and they should be given to someone that at least tries to implement the idea.
This "some" appears to be a rather sizable proportion. Added to that the process of issuing these patents is fundermentally broken in that once issued it takes a court to overturn one. Even if it should never have been issued in the first place.Just imagine, you spend years coming up with something that ou think is great. Some big company sees it and copies it. They have the money to promote it and they corner the market. You've wasted a couple of years without any return.
Thing is that if a big company copies your invention they can probably out litigate you, even if you have a patent. Especially in places such as the US where litigating in person often appears to be greatly disliked...
This is a nice clear-cut example of software patents stifling the market.
Even prior to such patents actually even existing.
And one would hope that this little lesson might help people re-evaluate the idea of having software patents.
First you need to identify who is actually pushing for the EU to allow software patents. As well as if the German government is likely to go along with in anyway. Which is presumably why Munich is consulting with the Federal Government.
Why should companies respect the government's law if the government see fit to just rip the patent if it gets in the government's way.
Governments quite frequently either write laws which allow them to opt out or ammend laws which would otherwise get in their way.
Either the government play by the market rules or the government has no reason to exist.
Patents are not "market rules" they are "government rules" in the first place. "Markets" functioned perfectly well for thousands of years without patents.
I think there is an advantage with open source in this respect: using open source could eliminate any claim about an infrigement being underhanded.
Or for that matter challenge the validity of the patent, on the basis of "prior art"...
In any case, Microsoft provides NO MORE WARRANTY than any Linux distributor might for a retail box or ISO download of their product. That being said, a major corporate or government enterprise would negotiate a special contract with the vendor.
Governments also have the ability to make and change laws.
Closed source is better for patent-threatened users because there are contracts in place and because of "fitness for use" laws.
Except that proprietary software licences typically dismiss such laws.
Open Source is great, but as the licenses make clear, *you* wind up holding all the liabilities. There aren't any warranties, and there's no implied fitness for use.
Much the same with proprietary software, read a few EULAs...
City of Münich may not have the ability to be able to spend that much of tax payers money on licensing.
But they may have the power to say "either you licence this to us for free or you do no business here". Failing that the German Federal Government is perfectly capable of saying "You have no patent (in Germany)."
Patents only have meaning in the first place because Governments say they have meaning.
The sysadmin's decision to "spy" on his boss was a poor one, regardless of the scenario.
Wouldn't it have been simpler to remove the game and block the websites?
Whatever the bosses story you have to ask yourself "Exactly what was the sysadmin attempting to accomplish?"
The story is clear on this. He wanted to raise a complaint about another employee abusing the computer system.
If his boss was such a poor performer, his failures would have made themselves evident over time.
Not if there are politics involved.
Then using myIE. Now you have a feature set that blows away Firefox, and everything else, while still having IE under the covers (if you want that...
Since it requires IE it comes with all the problems and limitations of IE. Including only working with Windows.
True it might do the work for the INS easier,
Assuming the problem is knowing where these people are. It took months for that poor Cuban boy to be returned home. Even though everyone, including CNN, knew exactly where he was.
My first reaction to this post was to disagree strongly with it. But when I lived in the states briefly, I had to be finger-printed to get a drivers license. And they are pretty universal, even to having a non-drivers drivers license.
This being something of an oxymoron. Why should someone who dosn't drive need a document which states what catagory of vehicles someone can drive. Only if this document is being abused for other purposes...