Wait, the feds can file patents? The federal government can't copyright things---consider the CIA World Factbook, released into the public domain each year. So why can they patent things? Wouldn't the same rationale apply?
Most what left of is are some ruins and some idea's
I suppose if you want to include the Latin alphabet and language, and the books that formed the cornerstone of Western civilization until the Renaissance, with deep enough cultural resonance that pretty much every eastern European nation used a mangled form (Kaizer, Czar) of Caesar to describe their rulers, in the set of "some ideas", then you might be right. What would count as the Romans leaving their mark? A centurion on every street corner?
PG has been around since 1971, actually---though they (or Michael Hart himself, more accurately) only released one etext that year, and an average of I think one every other year until the 1980s.
The pace has quickened somewhat since then, of course. (Those are the additions in the last day.)
You see, the tension in copyrights is between large media stakeholders and the great unwashed who want to watch Marx Brothers movies for free.
The tension in patents is between large monolithic corporations which can afford the patent rigmarole and large monolithic corporations looking to build off existing R&D.
In one case, there's a balance of power. In the other, there's not. Hence copyright is extended, while patents remain the same.
No, no. The whole point is that while there's more chaff than ever, thee's more delicious wheat as well. Meaning that you'd only be hauling around "America's Top Model" if you liked that sort of thing.
I'll be writing an open letter to the Justice Department about this. It worries me precisely because Max Hardcore is a creepy fucker, and because it'd hard to explain that yes, I am sticking up for that lady who liked stories about toddlers being fucked solely because of the principle of the thing---'cause this isn't so much about Max Hardcore or kiddie porn stories, it's about getting their foot in the door.
The only legal justification for cracking down on real child porn (Again from SCOTUS case law) is the fact that real children where exploited in the production.
Mmm. And that's why that nonsense about "simulated kiddie porn" was struck down. But now we've got those asinine record-keeping regulations which seem designed to stamp out amateur internet porn.
I was all excited about Lawrence v. Texas, when Scalia, in his dissent, made it clear that a whole raft of morality-based laws and procedures were now in danger, that legislatures would be "confined to preventing demonstrable harms". Which seemed fairly obvious to me, but perhaps only because I'm some sort of flaming liberal.
Regardless, we now seem to be moving in the opposite direction. I'm disappointed.
Considering that Media Research Center (mrc.org) bills itself as "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias", I think they may have an axe of their own to grind. The fellow running the place was also responsible for the manufactured outrage over TV indecency (y'all remember Janet Jackson's nipple, right?)
On your other link, I can't figure out what's being claimed. Is it that the soldiers were "coached" or that they were "pre-screened"? All I see is Scott McClellan denying everything. Now, the administration's habit of appearing only for military audiences or for folks who've signed loyalty oaths... well, that's a bit more troubling.
Because Max Hardcore can afford lawyers, he's back up and running. Some woman running a text file archive out of her own pocket isn't. I don't like his stuff (I never got what was so great about being mean to the girls), but I'm sure glad he's not shut down permanently.
Use the Wayback Machine to see what red-rose-stories.com was hosting. It was plain text, as you say, but it did not only depict "consenting adults", and frequently not in a "fantasy" setting. There was rape, and child molestation, and sometimes a heady mix of the two. So, of course, it's a little harder to defend. I mean, I'd feel a bit strange getting up on my soapbox and saying, "I will defend this woman's right to spread stories about raping infants to my very last breath!"---wouldn't you? And that's the point; there's a difference between being tolerant in general so that you aren't offended very often, and really believing that the legality of text shouldn't depend on whether or not you're offended.
I suppose we'll see how well the internet's swaths of civil libertarians stand up to being called pedophiles.
I'm glad that porn is completely legal here. I mean, it's not like Max Hardcore just got raided, or that Red Rose Stories got seized and shutdown by the feds, despite being a not-for-profit textfile archive.
Not everyone who uses IM tools uses IM 'tard-speech. Too many do, though. I work at a helpdesk, and we use IM to escalate issues to coordinators and whatnot. It's easy to log in conversation form, it's lightweight (being able to do things quickly and easily is a big plus, and since we use "Slowtus Notes", email doesn't fit the bill)... it works really well for us, filling in the gap between phones (in which you steal all of someone's attention for a short time) and email (which can get filed and forgotten way too easy).
The coordinators do ask us "did u get the tkt?" and "can u review?", though. And I thought people only talked like that in school.
People complain that the Linux desktop is unusable. Why in the blue hell would you want to be able to configure whether it's Cancel-OK or OK-Cancel? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having simple, easy to remember idioms on the desktop? Being able to fiddle with the code and change it is one thing, but putting it right in the configuration interface? Whose brain-damage was that?
Merging the guidelines is a fine and admirable idea. I'm sure it smacks of one-true-wayism far too much to be adopted with any haste, but I'd rather not have to accustom myself to two or more different user interface standards while on the same machine.
That's a terrible idea! The difference between GTK and QT apps is moe than just cosmetic; there are different usability guidelines for GNOME than there are for KDE. If you blur the distinction between them, the user's experience becomes that much more difficult. Instead of two environments running at once, each with its own consistent idioms and user experience, the user is faced with one big environment, but an inconsistent and confusing one.
You're sure you're not thinking of "Consumers Digest"? I'm pretty sure that CR doesn't accept ads. They even purchase all of the reviewed products at retail.
The whole point of Consumer Reports is that they pass judgment on products in a comparative fashion. Sometimes they approve of something; sometimes they don't. The whole point is that their endorsement is far, far more valuable than the endorsement of an advertisement, because it's honest. (At least, the whole point of Consumer Reports is to be unbiased and honest. If they're not, they're useless.)
I remember NG having some really stunning wildlife photography on the top three-fourths of a page, and the rest would be an explanation of the shiny, shiny Canon equipment that took it. So they were relevant (and frequently really pretty), but they were ads. I think they said "Wildlife as Canon sees it" or something like that.
The choice isn't between the mailed fist of draconian copyright laws and a free-for-all where no rights are respected. But protecting copyright isn't the only goal of the government, and when innovation in other areas is stifled, we have to ask if this is really balance.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, the feds can file patents? The federal government can't copyright things---consider the CIA World Factbook, released into the public domain each year. So why can they patent things? Wouldn't the same rationale apply?
What about Wu's line-drawing algorithm?
Most what left of is are some ruins and some idea's
I suppose if you want to include the Latin alphabet and language, and the books that formed the cornerstone of Western civilization until the Renaissance, with deep enough cultural resonance that pretty much every eastern European nation used a mangled form (Kaizer, Czar) of Caesar to describe their rulers, in the set of "some ideas", then you might be right. What would count as the Romans leaving their mark? A centurion on every street corner?
You can't fake man-tits like that. Imagine the dank sweat festering beneath them.
My god, dwarves could wear them as floppy, gelatinous hats.
You're incorrigible! And amazingly, the mods haven't decided to incorrige you with +1, Funny yet...
PG has been around since 1971, actually---though they (or Michael Hart himself, more accurately) only released one etext that year, and an average of I think one every other year until the 1980s.
The pace has quickened somewhat since then, of course. (Those are the additions in the last day.)
Really---the IUPAC says "Aluminium". "Aluminum" is the deviant mangled spelling/pronunciation.
You see, the tension in copyrights is between large media stakeholders and the great unwashed who want to watch Marx Brothers movies for free.
The tension in patents is between large monolithic corporations which can afford the patent rigmarole and large monolithic corporations looking to build off existing R&D.
In one case, there's a balance of power. In the other, there's not. Hence copyright is extended, while patents remain the same.
Why bother with physical media? Burn to a CD image, and extract from that.
No, no. The whole point is that while there's more chaff than ever, thee's more delicious wheat as well. Meaning that you'd only be hauling around "America's Top Model" if you liked that sort of thing.
Hey, might this be a marketing model for a new "Firefly" series?
I'll be writing an open letter to the Justice Department about this. It worries me precisely because Max Hardcore is a creepy fucker, and because it'd hard to explain that yes, I am sticking up for that lady who liked stories about toddlers being fucked solely because of the principle of the thing---'cause this isn't so much about Max Hardcore or kiddie porn stories, it's about getting their foot in the door.
The only legal justification for cracking down on real child porn (Again from SCOTUS case law) is the fact that real children where exploited in the production.
Mmm. And that's why that nonsense about "simulated kiddie porn" was struck down. But now we've got those asinine record-keeping regulations which seem designed to stamp out amateur internet porn.
I was all excited about Lawrence v. Texas, when Scalia, in his dissent, made it clear that a whole raft of morality-based laws and procedures were now in danger, that legislatures would be "confined to preventing demonstrable harms". Which seemed fairly obvious to me, but perhaps only because I'm some sort of flaming liberal.
Regardless, we now seem to be moving in the opposite direction. I'm disappointed.
So... does this mean that those people trading and sharing TV eps can no longer claim "they're free! how can you steal free stuff?"?
You do know that you can get Ubuntu with KDE, called Kubuntu, right?
Considering that Media Research Center (mrc.org) bills itself as "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias", I think they may have an axe of their own to grind. The fellow running the place was also responsible for the manufactured outrage over TV indecency (y'all remember Janet Jackson's nipple, right?)
On your other link, I can't figure out what's being claimed. Is it that the soldiers were "coached" or that they were "pre-screened"? All I see is Scott McClellan denying everything. Now, the administration's habit of appearing only for military audiences or for folks who've signed loyalty oaths... well, that's a bit more troubling.
Because Max Hardcore can afford lawyers, he's back up and running. Some woman running a text file archive out of her own pocket isn't. I don't like his stuff (I never got what was so great about being mean to the girls), but I'm sure glad he's not shut down permanently.
Use the Wayback Machine to see what red-rose-stories.com was hosting. It was plain text, as you say, but it did not only depict "consenting adults", and frequently not in a "fantasy" setting. There was rape, and child molestation, and sometimes a heady mix of the two. So, of course, it's a little harder to defend. I mean, I'd feel a bit strange getting up on my soapbox and saying, "I will defend this woman's right to spread stories about raping infants to my very last breath!"---wouldn't you? And that's the point; there's a difference between being tolerant in general so that you aren't offended very often, and really believing that the legality of text shouldn't depend on whether or not you're offended.
I suppose we'll see how well the internet's swaths of civil libertarians stand up to being called pedophiles.
I'm glad that porn is completely legal here. I mean, it's not like Max Hardcore just got raided, or that Red Rose Stories got seized and shutdown by the feds, despite being a not-for-profit textfile archive.
Oh, shit. Wait. Never mind.
Not everyone who uses IM tools uses IM 'tard-speech. Too many do, though. I work at a helpdesk, and we use IM to escalate issues to coordinators and whatnot. It's easy to log in conversation form, it's lightweight (being able to do things quickly and easily is a big plus, and since we use "Slowtus Notes", email doesn't fit the bill)... it works really well for us, filling in the gap between phones (in which you steal all of someone's attention for a short time) and email (which can get filed and forgotten way too easy).
The coordinators do ask us "did u get the tkt?" and "can u review?", though. And I thought people only talked like that in school.
People complain that the Linux desktop is unusable. Why in the blue hell would you want to be able to configure whether it's Cancel-OK or OK-Cancel? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having simple, easy to remember idioms on the desktop? Being able to fiddle with the code and change it is one thing, but putting it right in the configuration interface? Whose brain-damage was that?
Merging the guidelines is a fine and admirable idea. I'm sure it smacks of one-true-wayism far too much to be adopted with any haste, but I'd rather not have to accustom myself to two or more different user interface standards while on the same machine.
That's a terrible idea! The difference between GTK and QT apps is moe than just cosmetic; there are different usability guidelines for GNOME than there are for KDE. If you blur the distinction between them, the user's experience becomes that much more difficult. Instead of two environments running at once, each with its own consistent idioms and user experience, the user is faced with one big environment, but an inconsistent and confusing one.
Yech.
You're sure you're not thinking of "Consumers Digest"? I'm pretty sure that CR doesn't accept ads. They even purchase all of the reviewed products at retail.
The whole point of Consumer Reports is that they pass judgment on products in a comparative fashion. Sometimes they approve of something; sometimes they don't. The whole point is that their endorsement is far, far more valuable than the endorsement of an advertisement, because it's honest. (At least, the whole point of Consumer Reports is to be unbiased and honest. If they're not, they're useless.)
I remember NG having some really stunning wildlife photography on the top three-fourths of a page, and the rest would be an explanation of the shiny, shiny Canon equipment that took it. So they were relevant (and frequently really pretty), but they were ads. I think they said "Wildlife as Canon sees it" or something like that.
The choice isn't between the mailed fist of draconian copyright laws and a free-for-all where no rights are respected. But protecting copyright isn't the only goal of the government, and when innovation in other areas is stifled, we have to ask if this is really balance.