...is the tone of the article - it doens't even consider that original idea that copyright might be about balance, a privilege accorded with the intent of fostering creation.
With retrospectivly increasing copyright terms, on existing works, doing nothing to encourage creation. If anythig long, and especially increasing, copyright terms discourage the creation of new works.
Rather, it is simply accepted that the natural expiration of these copyrights, which the holders knew would happen, is somehow causing a property loss to the current holders.
Where this "property" is only considered to be "property" through legal fiat in the first place.
Imagine if you obtained a 50 year lease, and then at the end of those 50 years, the owner wanted the property back.
Now the "owner" gets an even worst deal of X years after someone dies. With no mechanism for the lessor indicating when the clock starts running. I doubt many people (both real and corporate) would willingly lease their property under such terms.
Would you moan to the government about extending your term unilaterally, with no other compensation to the actual owner?
Fischer violated economic sanctions that were leveled against a country for being complicit in the mass murder of thousands of people.
So have plenty of other countries including countries the US has activly supported.
His participation in the match gave credibility and economic advantage (probably) to a government that slaughtered its citizens.
How is this worst that the governments of rich countries having over their tax payers money to help out questional governments they consider "friends"?
As far as I am aware, BitTorrent has no true business model.
BitTorrent is no more a "business model" than HTTP, FTP, etc. It's simply a file transfer protocol. i.e. a basic tool. Business models apply to how you use tools.
The only harmful beams from the sun would be UV light, which would be best protected by staying inside of a glassed house. But I'm sure X-Rays and Gamma Rays are bombarding us, and without a magnetic field you better get a radiation suit or some Rad-X and Rad-Away
The Earth's magnetic field affects charged particles. X and Gamma photons are no more charged particles than UV or visible light.
This is even further mitigated in MSN, since an MSN message can only contain around 1600 characters... when you take into account the URL encoding required to send any usefull bytes into the overflow, you've only got around 500 bytes to work with for your exploit to run.
All malware writers need to do is to discover the concept of "bootstrapping" their exploits.
OS X takes less time to support than Linux because it's un*x-based (therefore stable) and the primary interface of the system is a GUI, not a CLI (by definition making it easier to administer).
GUI's may or may not be easier to use but they are often far harder to administer than CLIs. Especially when the only available "Administrator Interface" is a GUI.
Every single cryptic arcane placed-in-one-spot-on-this-system-but-placed-in-a- different-spot-on-another-system text-based configuration file is edited, not by hand, but via a GUI.
GUI's tend to be not very good at putting comments into files. Also the more complex the configuration the more complex the program you need to edit it. Note that configuration files can contain interpreted programs.
The reason why software companies can hire so many programmers is that they create a product, and millions of people can buy it.
How much, of the total software produced, fits with this model of selling an "off-the-shelf product" to millions of people? Many software companies have gone bankrupt chasing this business model. Plenty of software is "bespoke", even where an off-the-shelf package could be put together there may never be millions of potential customers in the first place.
I don't fully agree with Billy G here, but he does have a point. You make more money by producing commercial software than doing contract work.
If you are a sucessful maker of off-the-shelf proprietary software you can make a lot of money. Especially if you are in Microsoft's monopoly position, where the normal rules of supply and demand don't apply. If you try to follow this business model from scratch (especially if you are in competition with established suppliers) then you are likely to end up bankrupt.
There's nothing special about the wiring in your stoves and lightbulbs that DC current would change anything about, LED's even require DC. Flourescent lights might be a trial but since they already come with a modulator it'd just be a matter of throwing in a converter.
Flourescents are actually more efficent an converting electricity to light when run at a high frequency than a low frequency. Either 3,000 or 3,600 RPM from a steam turbine isn't too difficult, runing one at about 1,000,000 RPM is a difficult engineering problem.
You have to be really careful with FM radio, because if you don't limit the signal to the transmitter, you'll end up stomping all over the spectrum. Not nice to your fellow broadcasters...
Even less nice for you when the authorities shut you down... It's not as if it's difficult to track down the source of such interferance.
Compressing the range makes the music much more accessible in cars (and other high-noise environments). Of course, this makes it suck when you're listening to it on real audio equipment.
The better solution would be to put the compression in the ICE (In Car Entertainment) system.
But since radio is a major market, and most radios these days are in cars, there's a major push towards compression.
Except that a radio station will compress their output anyway.
Apparently this is done because 'loud sound better' and big music compaies think if their CD is 'louder' on the radio it will sound better. Of course, most music played on radio stations is not played directly off CD's! It gets recorded, 'normalized' and played from big digital jukeboxes.
Even if it was played directly from the CD it's going to wind up compressed and band limited to avoid overmodulation. Especially with FM, where overmodulation means you are potentially interfering with someone elses transmissions and risking getting your station shut down.
From how my father described it, it was a large electric motor attached to a generator with a 6-foot diameter reinforced concrete flywheel between them. The kinetic energy stored in the flywheel easily maintained consistenet power during brownouts, and gave four or five minutes of power if the power went out completely-- enough time for the diesel generators to start.
IIRC in some such systems the flywheel was used to start up a diesel engine (with a mechanical fuel pump).
Not at all. Mozilla falls down by trusting the multiple OSs it supports to securely handle something it doesn't understand. You did notice the part of the story that specifies this as a Mozilla/XP/2K exploit, right? No problem in Linux or *Bsd, etc., so I don't know how this OS intregration angle is relevant at all.
Also no problem with Win NT or Win 9X. So arguably the reason behind the fault is something Microsoft did in Win 2000
TV broad casters use the public airwaves. as such they have a responsibility to keep the content generally clean.
"Clean" is a very subjective thing. There's also the possibility that output which is "too clean" might itself offend people. Far better, IMHO, that broadcasters be honest and consistent in describing their output so that people can make an informed choice about what they want to watch. As for those who deliberatly seek out what offends them just so they can complain about it the phrase "get a life" is most appropriate.
I do agree that there's way too much violence on american television, but for some reason that seems more acceptable that simply showing a breast.
There's also a certain irony that a sport so violent and dangerous that the players need to wear body armour in order not to be carted off in an ambulance (or hurse) is considered "family entertainment".
The other day pissed me off.. the local classic rock station here actually played a censored version of The Who's "Who Are You". I couldn't believe it...you could hear where they went in and spliced tape to omit the the two times Daltry sings "...who the fuck are you..."
But could you complain about that radio station offending you?
Maybe they could be....:-) I don't think their proposed requirement says what medium the archive has to be on. VHS on the really really really long run cycle would still be an archive.
You'd have several hundred tapes. There's also the problem that regular consumer VCRs arn't really designed for continuious use.
From another viewpoint, we are simply incapable of responding in real time to bleep out a embargoed word when carrying what the networks feed us, or of recognizing and setting up an overlay fuzzball in real time of such goings on as the "wardrobe malfunction" during the superbowl.
Could you not have a profanity delay and drop to white noise/fault card in this kind of case.
Shelled out that kind of cash? Are you serious? Say people pay $10 to see a movie that costs $50 million. They would need 5 million people across the entire country to see the movie to break even. That's 2% of the US population. A successful movie only needs to attract 2% of its possible audience over the course of several weeks in order to make money. That means it does not have to be particularly good.
Except that your potential audience isn't just the US it is the entire English (or Spanish) speaking population of the planet.
Notice that movies have been getting more and more expensive as time goes on:
So has the ticket price... Recent movies also have additional sources of income, such as TV and home video.
Copyright is supposed to be a quid pro quo arrangement. The owner gets protection for X years, and the work is supposed to enter the public domain after that. Put the work in a vault
The "vault" in this case being called a "copyright library". A concept modern copyright laws have made unworkable.
and let it grow mold, and voila, you got the protection for the time you were making money, then didn't have to pay off.
Because it's in a "vault" it will still exist when it becomes public property...
Would you sign a contract where someone was supposed to pay up 70 years after their death, yet that contract specifically said the person was not even required to make a will or designate who would be the person to contact when that contract finally came due?
Without any way of knowing when the 70 years will start or even if it will stay at 70 years...
Wow, that would be the most terrible future imaginable. Movies made by people who really want to make movies. Not for the potential fortune.
It probably would be a terrible future for those in the business to make money and those "poor" star actors and directors being paid way more than their actual "talent level".
Copyright law was created to protect the market for the creator.
Actually copyright law was originally created for state control over what could (and more important could not) be printed on the then new invention of the printing press. The idea of it being about protecting the creator didn't happen until around a century later.
Nobody else would be allowed to publish their work, without their permission. Just that. Nothing about guaranteed profits, or keeping people from seeing it, or controlling when or how someone views it.
The "use-right" elements of modern copyright laws have been picked up over the last couple of hundred years, from various places. Quite possibly without whatever checks and balances they may once have had attached through "harmonization".
Copyright is not a constitutional right for citizens. The constitution explicitly says that copyright may be granted by congress to "promote the progress of science and useful arts."
Note that the US Constitution does not use the term "copyright". The actual wording is "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". It is very hard to reconcile this text with increasing the copyright terms of already existing works. As well as copyrights being transferable and outliving the creator of a work...
Slashdot Mirror
...is the tone of the article - it doens't even consider that original idea that copyright might be about balance, a privilege accorded with the intent of fostering creation.
With retrospectivly increasing copyright terms, on existing works, doing nothing to encourage creation. If anythig long, and especially increasing, copyright terms discourage the creation of new works.
Rather, it is simply accepted that the natural expiration of these copyrights, which the holders knew would happen, is somehow causing a property loss to the current holders.
Where this "property" is only considered to be "property" through legal fiat in the first place.
Imagine if you obtained a 50 year lease, and then at the end of those 50 years, the owner wanted the property back.
Now the "owner" gets an even worst deal of X years after someone dies. With no mechanism for the lessor indicating when the clock starts running. I doubt many people (both real and corporate) would willingly lease their property under such terms.
Would you moan to the government about extending your term unilaterally, with no other compensation to the actual owner?
Not even any consultation with the owner...
Thankfully we don't lock people up for believing crazy things just yet, otherwise probbably 30% of the population would be behind bars.
What yardstick do you use to measure "crazy"? Espcially how do you avoid highly political metrics being used...
Fischer violated economic sanctions that were leveled against a country for being complicit in the mass murder of thousands of people.
So have plenty of other countries including countries the US has activly supported.
His participation in the match gave credibility and economic advantage (probably) to a government that slaughtered its citizens.
How is this worst that the governments of rich countries having over their tax payers money to help out questional governments they consider "friends"?
As far as I am aware, BitTorrent has no true business model.
BitTorrent is no more a "business model" than HTTP, FTP, etc. It's simply a file transfer protocol. i.e. a basic tool. Business models apply to how you use tools.
Having raised bees, I do not remember that but I would think the relative position of the field would be important, not the absolute position.
It's not as if the average worker bee would live long enough to notice a change.
The only harmful beams from the sun would be UV light, which would be best protected by staying inside of a glassed house. But I'm sure X-Rays and Gamma Rays are bombarding us, and without a magnetic field you better get a radiation suit or some Rad-X and Rad-Away
The Earth's magnetic field affects charged particles. X and Gamma photons are no more charged particles than UV or visible light.
This is even further mitigated in MSN, since an MSN message can only contain around 1600 characters... when you take into account the URL encoding required to send any usefull bytes into the overflow, you've only got around 500 bytes to work with for your exploit to run.
All malware writers need to do is to discover the concept of "bootstrapping" their exploits.
OS X takes less time to support than Linux because it's un*x-based (therefore stable) and the primary interface of the system is a GUI, not a CLI (by definition making it easier to administer).
- different-spot-on-another-system text-based configuration file is edited, not by hand, but via a GUI.
GUI's may or may not be easier to use but they are often far harder to administer than CLIs. Especially when the only available "Administrator Interface" is a GUI.
Every single cryptic arcane placed-in-one-spot-on-this-system-but-placed-in-a
GUI's tend to be not very good at putting comments into files. Also the more complex the configuration the more complex the program you need to edit it. Note that configuration files can contain interpreted programs.
The reason why software companies can hire so many programmers is that they create a product, and millions of people can buy it.
How much, of the total software produced, fits with this model of selling an "off-the-shelf product" to millions of people? Many software companies have gone bankrupt chasing this business model. Plenty of software is "bespoke", even where an off-the-shelf package could be put together there may never be millions of potential customers in the first place.
I don't fully agree with Billy G here, but he does have a point. You make more money by producing commercial software than doing contract work.
If you are a sucessful maker of off-the-shelf proprietary software you can make a lot of money. Especially if you are in Microsoft's monopoly position, where the normal rules of supply and demand don't apply. If you try to follow this business model from scratch (especially if you are in competition with established suppliers) then you are likely to end up bankrupt.
There's nothing special about the wiring in your stoves and lightbulbs that DC current would change anything about, LED's even require DC. Flourescent lights might be a trial but since they already come with a modulator it'd just be a matter of throwing in a converter.
Flourescents are actually more efficent an converting electricity to light when run at a high frequency than a low frequency. Either 3,000 or 3,600 RPM from a steam turbine isn't too difficult, runing one at about 1,000,000 RPM is a difficult engineering problem.
You have to be really careful with FM radio, because if you don't limit the signal to the transmitter, you'll end up stomping all over the spectrum. Not nice to your fellow broadcasters...
Even less nice for you when the authorities shut you down... It's not as if it's difficult to track down the source of such interferance.
Compressing the range makes the music much more accessible in cars (and other high-noise environments). Of course, this makes it suck when you're listening to it on real audio equipment.
The better solution would be to put the compression in the ICE (In Car Entertainment) system.
But since radio is a major market, and most radios these days are in cars, there's a major push towards compression.
Except that a radio station will compress their output anyway.
Apparently this is done because 'loud sound better' and big music compaies think if their CD is 'louder' on the radio it will sound better. Of course, most music played on radio stations is not played directly off CD's! It gets recorded, 'normalized' and played from big digital jukeboxes.
Even if it was played directly from the CD it's going to wind up compressed and band limited to avoid overmodulation. Especially with FM, where overmodulation means you are potentially interfering with someone elses transmissions and risking getting your station shut down.
From how my father described it, it was a large electric motor attached to a generator with a 6-foot diameter reinforced concrete flywheel between them. The kinetic energy stored in the flywheel easily maintained consistenet power during brownouts, and gave four or five minutes of power if the power went out completely-- enough time for the diesel generators to start.
IIRC in some such systems the flywheel was used to start up a diesel engine (with a mechanical fuel pump).
Not at all. Mozilla falls down by trusting the multiple OSs it supports to securely handle something it doesn't understand. You did notice the part of the story that specifies this as a Mozilla/XP/2K exploit, right? No problem in Linux or *Bsd, etc., so I don't know how this OS intregration angle is relevant at all.
Also no problem with Win NT or Win 9X. So arguably the reason behind the fault is something Microsoft did in Win 2000
TV broad casters use the public airwaves. as such they have a responsibility to keep the content generally clean.
"Clean" is a very subjective thing. There's also the possibility that output which is "too clean" might itself offend people.
Far better, IMHO, that broadcasters be honest and consistent in describing their output so that people can make an informed choice about what they want to watch. As for those who deliberatly seek out what offends them just so they can complain about it the phrase "get a life" is most appropriate.
I do agree that there's way too much violence on american television, but for some reason that seems more acceptable that simply showing a breast.
There's also a certain irony that a sport so violent and dangerous that the players need to wear body armour in order not to be carted off in an ambulance (or hurse) is considered "family entertainment".
The other day pissed me off.. the local classic rock station here actually played a censored version of The Who's "Who Are You". I couldn't believe it...you could hear where they went in and spliced tape to omit the the two times Daltry sings "...who the fuck are you..."
But could you complain about that radio station offending you?
Maybe they could be.... :-) I don't think their proposed requirement says what medium the archive has to be on. VHS on the really really really long run cycle would still be an archive.
You'd have several hundred tapes. There's also the problem that regular consumer VCRs arn't really designed for continuious use.
From another viewpoint, we are simply incapable of responding in real time to bleep out a embargoed word when carrying what the networks feed us, or of recognizing and setting up an overlay fuzzball in real time of such goings on as the "wardrobe malfunction" during the superbowl.
Could you not have a profanity delay and drop to white noise/fault card in this kind of case.
Shelled out that kind of cash? Are you serious? Say people pay $10 to see a movie that costs $50 million. They would need 5 million people across the entire country to see the movie to break even. That's 2% of the US population. A successful movie only needs to attract 2% of its possible audience over the course of several weeks in order to make money. That means it does not have to be particularly good.
Except that your potential audience isn't just the US it is the entire English (or Spanish) speaking population of the planet.
Notice that movies have been getting more and more expensive as time goes on:
So has the ticket price... Recent movies also have additional sources of income, such as TV and home video.
Copyright is supposed to be a quid pro quo arrangement. The owner gets protection for X years, and the work is supposed to enter the public domain after that. Put the work in a vault
The "vault" in this case being called a "copyright library". A concept modern copyright laws have made unworkable.
and let it grow mold, and voila, you got the protection for the time you were making money, then didn't have to pay off.
Because it's in a "vault" it will still exist when it becomes public property...
Would you sign a contract where someone was supposed to pay up 70 years after their death, yet that contract specifically said the person was not even required to make a will or designate who would be the person to contact when that contract finally came due?
Without any way of knowing when the 70 years will start or even if it will stay at 70 years...
Wow, that would be the most terrible future imaginable. Movies made by people who really want to make movies. Not for the potential fortune.
It probably would be a terrible future for those in the business to make money and those "poor" star actors and directors being paid way more than their actual "talent level".
Copyright law was created to protect the market for the creator.
Actually copyright law was originally created for state control over what could (and more important could not) be printed on the then new invention of the printing press. The idea of it being about protecting the creator didn't happen until around a century later.
Nobody else would be allowed to publish their work, without their permission. Just that. Nothing about guaranteed profits, or keeping people from seeing it, or controlling when or how someone views it.
The "use-right" elements of modern copyright laws have been picked up over the last couple of hundred years, from various places. Quite possibly without whatever checks and balances they may once have had attached through "harmonization".
Copyright is not a constitutional right for citizens. The constitution explicitly says that copyright may be granted by congress to "promote the progress of science and useful arts."
Note that the US Constitution does not use the term "copyright". The actual wording is "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".
It is very hard to reconcile this text with increasing the copyright terms of already existing works. As well as copyrights being transferable and outliving the creator of a work...