While big commercial labs may be dying, basic science is not going to die. Basic science will move to universities with big endowments (see Harvard) that have no profit-motive (apart from their endowment managers).
This result was likely precipitated 20 years ago by the Bayh-Dole Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole_Act , which brought about the ease of commercialization of university inventions and the rise of "tech transfer offices" within such institutions.
This is an opportunity for great American universities (widely regarded around the world as the top in research) to become even stronger. Having basic science tied up in the back rooms of corporate laboratories is no way to go about advancing human scientific progress. As universities move toward making all their professors' research available freely online, this will in fact be quite the boon to basic science (in America and elsewhere). See http://www.fas.harvard.edu/home/news_and_events/releases/scholarly_02122008.html
The idea of buying an entire CD for one song on the radio has gone out of fashion. People now realize that one popular song can be found on iTunes, obviating the need for buying 12 to 15 other, useless tracks. If this fact alone doesn't account for 20% plummeting in CD sales, I would be surprised.
It depends on whether the shareholders can vote their shares cumulatively for a staggered board. If so, owning 29% of outstanding shares gives some a "controlling stake" (even though you don't perceive it as a majority). They can control the board by cumulatively voting their shares to elect a majority of the staggered board at each shareholder meeting.
Also, there are many provisions (and suggested provisions) in corporate law that a person (or coalition) with more than 5% be able to, say, propose changes to the bylaws or corporate charter. So, owning a 7% stake would be very significant, especially in terms of agenda setting (even if he weren't on the board....being on the board is just that much more power).
Who's going to believe that a man with 4 networked computers (one recently "cleaned"), high speed internet, and a wifi setup (perhaps with security disabled for just such a defense) is a "computer novice" subjected to the attacks of a roving gang of drive-by internet pirates? I'm sure it looks good for his friends and family to hear him proclaim innocence to the claims, but he should be aware that perjury is a crime!
Perhaps what you fail to realize is that ANY statistic becomes MORE useful as it increases in randomness. It would be impossible to find (and survey) a completely random sample of the linux-using population.
Moreover, just because a website is benignly named speaks nothing of the validity of the study. These statistics cannot and should not be used for real empirical study of the linux population, as it contains a number of very MAJOR flaws in statistical sampling, the most egregious of which is: SELF-SELECTING AUDIENCE (as reflected in the Yoper debacle).
While it's fun to collect survey data, this IS pretty much useless.
I am attached to my TV. And my TiVo. And cable (or satellite, or IPTV, or whatever they come up with next). It provides me with information and entertainment. TV has been a part of my life since I can remember. I used to wonder what people did before Nickelodeon and MTV.
The three-network powers of yore are about to get a much-needed shot in the arm (or perhaps the butt, if their core cheapo analog viewers decide to upgrade to cable instead of buying a digital converter).
I don't really even know who watches over-the-air broadcast television, other than people who can't/won't/don't pay for cable BUT still love TV enough to own a set.
Essentially what I'm implying is that people who currently don't pay for cable or satellite (a) cannot pay for it, or (b) don't want the advanced features or channels.
Therefore, almost every single benefit of digital broadcasts are almost entirely irrelevant. Receiving an HD picture on a 13 inch analog television won't look any better (and will cost those consumers $50-$100 to buy the converter). Moreover, those who don't want the advanced features or multitude of channels aren't going to suddenly buy a big-screen HDTV to watch broadcast channels in high definition, just because their black-and-white in the kitchen doesn't receive Maury Povich anymore.
While I think it is wise and important to reapportion our available spectrum as new technology becomes available and matures, I doubt the legislative mandate to push analog TV into obsolescence is important or a worthwhile use of our legislative, financial, and technological resources.
(As a side note, isn't broadcast television dying, or just turning into one of the pack, anyway? We are no longer bound to the three-network oligarchy, and I fail to see why we should keep supporting that establishment legislatively).
Who is this guy? Why is his post at the top of both "legal" posts of the day? Your legal analysis might be more effective if you learn English./flame on
shouldn't slashdot have some sort of journalistic responsibility to retract posts that are clearly hoaxes? many "legitimate" news sources often refer to slashdot as a real reference, and leaving hoaxes up un-changed seems unethical.
seriously though. Real makes a good point: they aren't disabling apple's copyright protection of the music. If anything, they are adding newly protectable content.
booya!
MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority
on
1984 Comes To Boston
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I got the wireless network adapter for my TiVo last week and it already streams music from a folder called TiVo Online in the trial subscription of the "home media option." It has about 10 songs from "In Da Club" to "Stupid Girl."
Just another cost of supporting Microsoft, I suppose
I think the editors should exercise a little more control when posting things. This was perhaps an excellent resource to link to, but the last line could have been edited, sparing us from an easy (if overinclusive and ineffective) jab at everybody's favorite company to hate.
In sum, the facts speak for themselves. We don't need slashdot to become like Fox News.
sadly, i agree. this article is bereft of any important or interesting information or conjecture. it basically says "there's nothing to say about anything."
The statement that the MPAA made about what they are trying to do really angered me. "What we are trying trying to do is educate the population about what is appropriate, both from an ethical standpoint and from a legal standpoint." I think this sort of nonsensical, oligarchic, unfounded thought-leadership attempt should be ignored and fought against totally and completely. I'll separate my points in to logical little points, so you can understand them more easily.
1. Ethics and morals are based on social standards, where the majority becomes (in a sense) "right." It has proven time and again that social values, morals, ethics CHANGE over time.
2. The MPAA is not a "thought-leader" in this area. To prove this point, look at the millions of people actually trading movies and how one (very small and seemingly powerful) wants to control or regulate this. We cannot allow an oligarchy to run the way we live our lives.
3. When it is something that can be reproduced infinitely and perfectly for free, how does it become theft? To "steal" a movie, one does not actually take a physical case containg a disc from a vidoe or retail store. So defining that all americans are wrong for "stealing" movies is up for debate, just merely on the point that it can't really be considered stealing in the usual sense. This is also a reflection of changing ethics and values.
And...as heartwarming as your tale about your Gaelic friend's band is, the fact remains that many small and unknown bands get more recognition and fans through these mediums. The simple facts that album sales of all artists have been increasing steadily lately are evidence enough that Napster has had pretty much *NO* bad effects on bands (except maybe Metallica;)...i hate them). And in most cases, Napster has increased what would be an artists cd revenues. P.S. The recording INDUSTRY makes the most money from CD sales. The artist gets paid a very meager sum of the 15 dollars we spend on CDs. It makes sense then, that the RIAA would fight so vigorously against Napster, even though Napster might increase the fan-base and concert ticket revenues for individual artists.
All in all, I think YOUR argument is hogwash. I will not stand silently by and allow the MPAA or the RIAA to try to dictate American legal, ethical, moral, social, and economic thought.
---------
shimbee
Slashdot Mirror
While big commercial labs may be dying, basic science is not going to die. Basic science will move to universities with big endowments (see Harvard) that have no profit-motive (apart from their endowment managers).
This result was likely precipitated 20 years ago by the Bayh-Dole Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole_Act , which brought about the ease of commercialization of university inventions and the rise of "tech transfer offices" within such institutions.
This is an opportunity for great American universities (widely regarded around the world as the top in research) to become even stronger. Having basic science tied up in the back rooms of corporate laboratories is no way to go about advancing human scientific progress. As universities move toward making all their professors' research available freely online, this will in fact be quite the boon to basic science (in America and elsewhere). See http://www.fas.harvard.edu/home/news_and_events/releases/scholarly_02122008.html
The idea of buying an entire CD for one song on the radio has gone out of fashion. People now realize that one popular song can be found on iTunes, obviating the need for buying 12 to 15 other, useless tracks. If this fact alone doesn't account for 20% plummeting in CD sales, I would be surprised.
It depends on whether the shareholders can vote their shares cumulatively for a staggered board. If so, owning 29% of outstanding shares gives some a "controlling stake" (even though you don't perceive it as a majority). They can control the board by cumulatively voting their shares to elect a majority of the staggered board at each shareholder meeting.
Also, there are many provisions (and suggested provisions) in corporate law that a person (or coalition) with more than 5% be able to, say, propose changes to the bylaws or corporate charter. So, owning a 7% stake would be very significant, especially in terms of agenda setting (even if he weren't on the board....being on the board is just that much more power).
Who's going to believe that a man with 4 networked computers (one recently "cleaned"), high speed internet, and a wifi setup (perhaps with security disabled for just such a defense) is a "computer novice" subjected to the attacks of a roving gang of drive-by internet pirates? I'm sure it looks good for his friends and family to hear him proclaim innocence to the claims, but he should be aware that perjury is a crime!
This sounds just like a rehash of Cass Sunstein's article "The Daily We"
Thankfully, our intelligence-gathering/spying community is awful!
Perhaps what you fail to realize is that ANY statistic becomes MORE useful as it increases in randomness. It would be impossible to find (and survey) a completely random sample of the linux-using population.
Moreover, just because a website is benignly named speaks nothing of the validity of the study. These statistics cannot and should not be used for real empirical study of the linux population, as it contains a number of very MAJOR flaws in statistical sampling, the most egregious of which is: SELF-SELECTING AUDIENCE (as reflected in the Yoper debacle).
While it's fun to collect survey data, this IS pretty much useless.
Here here. How about a little more context in the body of the post. I have no idea who Joss Whedon is (and after looking him up, I don't really care).
I am attached to my TV. And my TiVo. And cable (or satellite, or IPTV, or whatever they come up with next). It provides me with information and entertainment. TV has been a part of my life since I can remember. I used to wonder what people did before Nickelodeon and MTV.
The three-network powers of yore are about to get a much-needed shot in the arm (or perhaps the butt, if their core cheapo analog viewers decide to upgrade to cable instead of buying a digital converter).
I don't really even know who watches over-the-air broadcast television, other than people who can't/won't/don't pay for cable BUT still love TV enough to own a set.
Essentially what I'm implying is that people who currently don't pay for cable or satellite (a) cannot pay for it, or (b) don't want the advanced features or channels.
Therefore, almost every single benefit of digital broadcasts are almost entirely irrelevant. Receiving an HD picture on a 13 inch analog television won't look any better (and will cost those consumers $50-$100 to buy the converter). Moreover, those who don't want the advanced features or multitude of channels aren't going to suddenly buy a big-screen HDTV to watch broadcast channels in high definition, just because their black-and-white in the kitchen doesn't receive Maury Povich anymore.
While I think it is wise and important to reapportion our available spectrum as new technology becomes available and matures, I doubt the legislative mandate to push analog TV into obsolescence is important or a worthwhile use of our legislative, financial, and technological resources.
(As a side note, isn't broadcast television dying, or just turning into one of the pack, anyway? We are no longer bound to the three-network oligarchy, and I fail to see why we should keep supporting that establishment legislatively).
Perhaps they're playing wait and see with a target audience. You can already watch episodes of popular soap operas on Soap City
Suck it Trebek
Who is this guy? Why is his post at the top of both "legal" posts of the day? Your legal analysis might be more effective if you learn English. /flame on
shouldn't slashdot have some sort of journalistic responsibility to retract posts that are clearly hoaxes? many "legitimate" news sources often refer to slashdot as a real reference, and leaving hoaxes up un-changed seems unethical.
Names can't be copyrighted...they'd be taking action against uses of the name under TRADEMARK law.
There are a couple of issues they might run into:
1) continuous use -- has the trademark been in continuous use over the years? They can't just abandon it and pick it back up
2) passing off - if no one else is "passing themselves off" as the Commodore computer company, they probably don't have an action.
overall, if their investment plan is litigation, i think they are in a craptacular situation
it's not the college's Berkman Center...it's the Law School's Berkman center....
;)
- law student extraordinaire
I thought the point of VoIP was to eliminate the "local" nature of the calls, since they're not routed through as many traditional public exchanges.
Maybe they just have better deals with the Toronto telcos.
take that Apple. you just got SERVED.
seriously though. Real makes a good point: they aren't disabling apple's copyright protection of the music. If anything, they are adding newly protectable content.
booya!
not Metro Boston....
get it right or pay the price!
I got the wireless network adapter for my TiVo last week and it already streams music from a folder called TiVo Online in the trial subscription of the "home media option." It has about 10 songs from "In Da Club" to "Stupid Girl."
Just another cost of supporting Microsoft, I suppose
I think the editors should exercise a little more control when posting things. This was perhaps an excellent resource to link to, but the last line could have been edited, sparing us from an easy (if overinclusive and ineffective) jab at everybody's favorite company to hate. In sum, the facts speak for themselves. We don't need slashdot to become like Fox News.
sadly, i agree. this article is bereft of any important or interesting information or conjecture. it basically says "there's nothing to say about anything."
good thing it's in italy and not in greece. gaming times 1000 counts of conspiracy would be bad ;).
The statement that the MPAA made about what they are trying to do really angered me. "What we are trying trying to do is educate the population about what is appropriate, both from an ethical standpoint and from a legal standpoint." I think this sort of nonsensical, oligarchic, unfounded thought-leadership attempt should be ignored and fought against totally and completely. I'll separate my points in to logical little points, so you can understand them more easily. 1. Ethics and morals are based on social standards, where the majority becomes (in a sense) "right." It has proven time and again that social values, morals, ethics CHANGE over time. 2. The MPAA is not a "thought-leader" in this area. To prove this point, look at the millions of people actually trading movies and how one (very small and seemingly powerful) wants to control or regulate this. We cannot allow an oligarchy to run the way we live our lives. 3. When it is something that can be reproduced infinitely and perfectly for free, how does it become theft? To "steal" a movie, one does not actually take a physical case containg a disc from a vidoe or retail store. So defining that all americans are wrong for "stealing" movies is up for debate, just merely on the point that it can't really be considered stealing in the usual sense. This is also a reflection of changing ethics and values. And...as heartwarming as your tale about your Gaelic friend's band is, the fact remains that many small and unknown bands get more recognition and fans through these mediums. The simple facts that album sales of all artists have been increasing steadily lately are evidence enough that Napster has had pretty much *NO* bad effects on bands (except maybe Metallica ;)...i hate them). And in most cases, Napster has increased what would be an artists cd revenues. P.S. The recording INDUSTRY makes the most money from CD sales. The artist gets paid a very meager sum of the 15 dollars we spend on CDs. It makes sense then, that the RIAA would fight so vigorously against Napster, even though Napster might increase the fan-base and concert ticket revenues for individual artists.
All in all, I think YOUR argument is hogwash. I will not stand silently by and allow the MPAA or the RIAA to try to dictate American legal, ethical, moral, social, and economic thought.
---------
shimbee