If you find a 'copyrighted' work which has only a (c) and a date, it's not copyrighted (at least not by that notice placed on it). The recognized symbol is a 'c' inside a circle, or the whole word 'copyright' spelled out.
The power that the Music industry has over musicians right now is that they own the distribution channels.
All this license does is eliminate the Music industry's exclusive access to the music. They still own almost all of the infrastructure used to deliver music the way most people acquire it.
As online distribtuion methods take hold (if they take hold in the mainstream, that is) this will make a difference.
As it stands today, this license makes no difference. Musicians can make all the CD copies of their music they like. If they can't get them onto retail shelvess for sale, it doesn't matter. The Music Industry still controls those channels.
No, you're not going to get rich selling your CDs on a card table out on the sidewalk.
International conventions dicate that when a damanged plane issues a 'mayday' they are then to be allowed to land at nearby airfields. Such a signal was issued.
I have a copy of Noriega's book (it was cheap off the remainder table at WaldenBooks). Anybody, anywhere who is in prison has a 'I didn't do it' story ready to trot out. They've got a lot of time to come up with stuff like that in lockup.
The point of Noriega not being in a US entity: We kinda acted like we owned Panama back in the era when Noriega was doing his, er, tricks and stuff.
A friend of mine who works in the Cable TV industry told me about a method they used awhile back to catch people illegally receiving Cable programming. They have the ability to program the Cable Boxes of legal subscribers. What they did was occasionally they would divert the legal boxes for a short while over to an alternate channel while playing a special 'Free Stuff!' promotion on the normal channel. Anybody who showed up for the Free Promotion by definition viewed it on a pirated Cable Box.
Both my Siamese cats are ITs. (both are formerly females). They hate each other. Perhaps it's because of this that they are so productive, producing large quantities of random vomit on the carpet.
They hated me when I went to Tech School (in 1982-84). The whole curriculum was structured around a 100 point Multiple choice (5 choices) test that was given every Friday. The instructor would try each week to get through that week's material. I had been a hardware freak since childhood and was into the electronics. So I'd ask questions where I really wanted to know the answer. Inevitably after asking one of my questions one of the other people in the class would ask 'will this be on the test on Friday?'
I went into the 'Biomedical/Instrumentation' elective thinking we would actually talk about Metrology and Instrumentation (we memorized anatomy and medical terminlogy so we'd understand the doctors when wheeling around the carts of equipment at the hospital.)
I went into the 'Communications' elective thinking we would be talking about RF Theory (we learned how to pass the multiple choice FCC test and trivia about troubleshooting CB Radios).
For the ComputerII elective one of our projects was to statically display a word on the Hex-display bar on the 6802 based 'trainer' boards in the lab. I was bored, so my display instead scrolled 'Eat at Joe's Bar and Grill.'
Pop Music and 'serious' music is like Fast Food compared to gourmet cooking.
And the 'Pop' category includes most of the stuff the people here ridiculing 'Brittney' considers 'good.'
Illiterate teenagers making noise in the garage aren't usually very good. There are well-trained musicians who make Pop music, but they are the exception, not the norm.
The problem is, it takes the focus away from all-of-pop-musick, which has pretty much the same credibility as the Brittney Spears used as an example. i.e. Phish could be plugged into the same sentence, with stupifying drugs used in place of the sexual reference.
But of course it's 'cool' to pretend there is 'good' pop musick and 'bad' pop musick...
There's no permanence, no durable record, in Online Publishing.
It's really pitiful that people like you seem to think electronic storage is up to the task of storing knowledge permanently forever.
It isn't. I can walk into a library and reference work done 30 years ago in many fields of science. Even if the funding is cut way back the works are usually available in 'the stacks' somewhere.
Find me an intellectually significant online resource that was available 15 years ago that is still just as accessable.
In the future the new methods will be proven and electronic means of storage will possibly become durable enough for this kind of permanent storage. Not now, however.
Actually, duplication is necessarily a good thing. Nobody accepts theories that aren't replicable, and nobody should. This isn't to say that communications barriers should be set up, just that duplication of effort is essential.
Pouring money into inner-city schools hasn't been shown to improve them. It just means the little hoods have more expensive stuff to wreck in the labs.
I run NetBSD on three architectures at home. Some of my i386 boxes, my Sparc boxes, and my 68K Macintosh boxes. The same OS runs on all three architectures. It all builds out of the same source tarballs. The configuration files in/etc are identical. The same apps will build on all the boxes out of the NetBSD Packages collection.
There's a lot of merit in that for various reasons. I grew tired of every yahoo out there tweaking the config files for a certain other freenix and calling it a 'new distribution.' It gets old after awhile.
I haven't installed a freenix (Slack or NetBSD) raw off a CD-ROM in years. NFS installs rule.
Oh, I will admit that I boot NetBSD Sparc installs off a CD-ROM, but that's just because floppy drives are old, dried up, and defective on a lot of old Sparcstations from years of zero use.
Slashdot Mirror
The (c) on any copyright notice is meaningless.
If you find a 'copyrighted' work which has only a (c) and a date, it's not copyrighted (at least not by that notice placed on it). The recognized symbol is a 'c' inside a circle, or the whole word 'copyright' spelled out.
The power that the Music industry has over musicians right now is that they own the distribution channels.
All this license does is eliminate the Music industry's exclusive access to the music. They still own almost all of the infrastructure used to deliver music the way most people acquire it.
As online distribtuion methods take hold (if they take hold in the mainstream, that is) this will make a difference.
As it stands today, this license makes no difference. Musicians can make all the CD copies of their music they like. If they can't get them onto retail shelvess for sale, it doesn't matter. The Music Industry still controls those channels.
No, you're not going to get rich selling your CDs on a card table out on the sidewalk.
International conventions dicate that when a damanged plane issues a 'mayday' they are then to be allowed to land at nearby airfields. Such a signal was issued.
I have a copy of Noriega's book (it was cheap off the remainder table at WaldenBooks). Anybody, anywhere who is in prison has a 'I didn't do it' story ready to trot out. They've got a lot of time to come up with stuff like that in lockup.
The point of Noriega not being in a US entity: We kinda acted like we owned Panama back in the era when Noriega was doing his, er, tricks and stuff.
A friend of mine who works in the Cable TV industry told me about a method they used awhile back to catch people illegally receiving Cable programming. They have the ability to program the Cable Boxes of legal subscribers. What they did was occasionally they would divert the legal boxes for a short while over to an alternate channel while playing a special 'Free Stuff!' promotion on the normal channel. Anybody who showed up for the Free Promotion by definition viewed it on a pirated Cable Box.
Both my Siamese cats are ITs. (both are formerly females). They hate each other. Perhaps it's because of this that they are so productive, producing large quantities of random vomit on the carpet.
They hated me when I went to Tech School (in 1982-84). The whole curriculum was structured around a 100 point Multiple choice (5 choices) test that was given every Friday. The instructor would try each week to get through that week's material. I had been a hardware freak since childhood and was into the electronics. So I'd ask questions where I really wanted to know the answer. Inevitably after asking one of my questions one of the other people in the class would ask 'will this be on the test on Friday?'
I went into the 'Biomedical/Instrumentation' elective thinking we would actually talk about Metrology and Instrumentation (we memorized anatomy and medical terminlogy so we'd understand the doctors when wheeling around the carts of equipment at the hospital.)
I went into the 'Communications' elective thinking we would be talking about RF Theory (we learned how to pass the multiple choice FCC test and trivia about troubleshooting CB Radios).
For the ComputerII elective one of our projects was to statically display a word on the Hex-display bar on the 6802 based 'trainer' boards in the lab. I was bored, so my display instead scrolled 'Eat at Joe's Bar and Grill.'
Tech school was hell.
Pop Music and 'serious' music is like Fast Food compared to gourmet cooking.
And the 'Pop' category includes most of the stuff the people here ridiculing 'Brittney' considers 'good.'
Illiterate teenagers making noise in the garage aren't usually very good. There are well-trained musicians who make Pop music, but they are the exception, not the norm.
The problem is, it takes the focus away from all-of-pop-musick, which has pretty much the same credibility as the Brittney Spears used as an example. i.e. Phish could be plugged into the same sentence, with stupifying drugs used in place of the sexual reference.
But of course it's 'cool' to pretend there is 'good' pop musick and 'bad' pop musick...
There's no permanence, no durable record, in Online Publishing.
It's really pitiful that people like you seem to think electronic storage is up to the task of storing knowledge permanently forever.
It isn't. I can walk into a library and reference work done 30 years ago in many fields of science. Even if the funding is cut way back the works are usually available in 'the stacks' somewhere.
Find me an intellectually significant online resource that was available 15 years ago that is still just as accessable.
In the future the new methods will be proven and electronic means of storage will possibly become durable enough for this kind of permanent storage. Not now, however.
Sadly, RAH lived in a Black/White Good/Evil world. He is truly the zealots's zealot.
Let's look closely at what he implies: Does anybody seriously believe scientists, or even most businessmen, seek to stop 'the clock of history'?
Actually, duplication is necessarily a good thing. Nobody accepts theories that aren't replicable, and nobody should. This isn't to say that communications barriers should be set up, just that duplication of effort is essential.
People make that case all the time, i.e. trying to change society, rase conciousness about carcinogens, etc.
I think he wants a .h file containing those defintions to be standard, not to have to drag in his own defintions everywhere he codes.
You've gotta be trolling. Nobody could ever do something that stupid and get away with it for long....
Pretty soon there will be secret decoder rings or you won't be allowed to attend the LUG...
A mandatory upgrade?
Hmmmm. I think I've heard of that someplace....
My point?
Any self-respecting pothead would rip off the filter if commercially-available joints were sold with a filter on the end.
All medical issues are at root societal issues.
Looks to me like it dignified a response.
Pouring money into inner-city schools hasn't been shown to improve them. It just means the little hoods have more expensive stuff to wreck in the labs.
The truth of the matter is, however, that most pot smokers don't 'filter' and in fact hoard and then resmoke all the tar that builds up in their bong.
They don't want even a bit of that tar to not make it to their lungs.
And Hershey is probably the world's biggest shipper of chocolate bars. Kraft is the world's biggest shipper of cheeses.
Bigger is not always better.
I run NetBSD on three architectures at home. Some of my i386 boxes, my Sparc boxes, and my 68K Macintosh boxes. The same OS runs on all three architectures. It all builds out of the same source tarballs. The configuration files in /etc are identical. The same apps will build on all the boxes out of the NetBSD Packages collection.
There's a lot of merit in that for various reasons. I grew tired of every yahoo out there tweaking the config files for a certain other freenix and calling it a 'new distribution.' It gets old after awhile.
Just about every other OS has adopted the BSD stack. Linus 'didn't like it' so a kludge was cobbled together to use instead.
So every other OS on the net interoperates. When bugs are found, the fixes can ripple through them all. Linux has it's own unique peculiar bugs.
I agree, it probably shouldn't be called a code fork. It's an architecture fork at a higher abstraction layer than source code.
BTW, I grepped the kernel source, and didn't see the email address of 'anonymous coward' in there anywhere....
An HP-UX binary license is $999. And you can order the actual software on a Media Kit for another $400. I think the ANSI C Compiler is about $2000.
Expensive enough?
I haven't installed a freenix (Slack or NetBSD) raw off a CD-ROM in years. NFS installs rule.
Oh, I will admit that I boot NetBSD Sparc installs off a CD-ROM, but that's just because floppy drives are old, dried up, and defective on a lot of old Sparcstations from years of zero use.