It's true. That's where the real damage from staring at an eclipse comes from. At those frequencies, not only can't you "see" the light, your pupils won't constrict either. So it's much worse than staring at visible light of equivalent intensity, since that would constrict your pupils, and protect you, mostly. With IR, or UV (I think UV is the more dangerous part) your pupils won't constrict making the damage much worse.
Actually, registration is not mandatory. Under U.S. law, copyright exists from the moment a work is created. However, you can't bring suit for infringement if you have not registered. Nor is publication necessary for copyright protection. (Publication is usually defined, in terms of copyright, as making copies available to the public.)
Oh yeah I know. I was phrasing it as if things were already that way, but I meant that this is how copyright "lapsing through neglect" could be implemented.
>Get off it. There never will be anything like "copyright lapsing through neglect". Neglect by who? For how long? How measured?
I was just replying to that, explaining who would be neglecting, and how long before it lapses, and how it's measured.
>Get off it. There never will be anything like "copyright lapsing through neglect". Neglect by who? For how long? How measured?
What are you talking about? It's very simple. You have to register your work if you want the privelege of exclusivity. You have to renew it every 14 years (just as an example). If you don't renew it, it goes into the public domain. The 14 years can be flexible. If someone gets in his application a little late, but it's obvious he meant to renew it, then you can give it to him.
Also, maybe we can charge a small (a few thousand dollars) fee to renew the copyright. If it's making so little money, that it's not worth renewing, then maybe it should go into the public domain. We wouldn't charge any fee upon initial registration, but only for renewals.
Well, suppose there is, in fact, life on Venus. That doesn't mean that given enough time, intelligent life will emerge. Maybe suitable conditions for basic life cover a very broad range, but that doesn't mean intelligent life can survive in such heat.
>Remember, if it was recorded after the early 20s it is still under copyright unless it either lapsed through neglect
But the trouble is there is no such thing as a copyright lapsing through neglect. True, most of the stuff being traded on p2p networks are still under copyright. So the real question is not "are there things being traded that aren't copyrighted?". It's "should all these things be copyrighted?"
Sure, I'd like a lot of things. Like a million dollars. It doesn't mean it there is any sense in awarding it to you. There isn't a single book, movie or song that you would've made, but won't, since copyright isn't your entire lifetime. That's the only issue.
It seems like you thought this through some other time, and were looking for a post to respond to, even if it wasn't exactly a "response". I, in fact, believe in copyright as a necessary construct of the law, as the constitution puts it, to promote progress in the arts and useful sciences (or useful arts and sciences?). My personal belief is that copyright should be at most 14 years, and it should not place any restrictions on derivative works. But this is just my opinion, and it has nothing to do with my original post, or the discussion.
By ANYONES measure, even those who are big supporters of copyright, this is abuse. It's kind of like Sega taking out patents on the controller connectors and such, in order to lock people out from selling products that let them hack the Dreamcast. It really has nothing to do with the patent. But by patenting an intrinsic part of the connector, you can prevent anyone from hacking your hardware. This stuff about sega is from a similar story, about a year ago, about customs blocking Lik-Sang, because of some Dreamcast related hacking product.
No, she's was relating her experience in the courts with that specific law and that specific section. Have you actually read the law, and the section in question? I admit, I haven't. But it seems to me like you haven't either. She said that this is explicitly what the law says. I'll look into it, I suppose.
No. That section has so many loopholes that it can almost never be applied. For example, you can only reverse engineer if you want to IMPROVE the security of a product and not undermine it (not that I see the difference). This is according to Robin Gross from EFF, at 2600 H2K2.
No, you're absolutely right. The real problem is that Microsoft is using copyright law to make sure no one reverse engineers their hardware. To me, that's just an abuse of copyright. It really has nothing to do with protected the BIOS that they worked so hard on. It's a way of closing up their hardware, and having the law to back it up. I don't like that.
For that matter, don't go through tolls, since they photograph EVERY license plate that goes through. There is NO way to travel anonymously in the United States. Ahh well, the Constitution protected us for a while, it was fun while it lasted.
Ahh, but that's exactly where the problem comes in. There is absolutely no way that the police will use the video ONLY for criminals. It goes against their whole MO.
I agree with all of what you're saying about the legality of taking photos in public. But as a citizen, I don't want law enforcement to be allowed to place video cameras on every corner to watch us systematically. If enough people don't want law enforcement to do that, then we can just outlaw it. It's possible to make it illegal for the police to do something without outlawing it altogether.
You're absolutely right, there shouldn't be a law against taking people's picture without their permission. But our government should not be allowed to put cameras on each and every corner to systematically watch us, if WE DON'T WANT THAT.
That's called jury nullification, and it's one of the few areas where REAL, average, citizens have the right to directly affect the law and how it's enforced. Yay jury nullication!
You're absolutely right. Maybe out of all the chemicals in the universe DNA is the only one which can encode genetic information in a biological process, and therefore any alien life would have to have DNA. I was going to mention that, but I just didn't want to write a rambling post, by mentioning every side possibility, and qualifying my every statement. The point of my post still stands tho. My point was, we can't even guarantee they'd have any idea what DNA means. No matter how smart you are, without actually seeing DNA based life forms, and knowing what base pairs correspond to which amino acids (as far as I know, it's arbitrary), they couldn't possibly figure it out.
I've never heard of 1080p; I don't think it's a real thing. I mean, sure, there are monitors which support 1920x1080 non-interlaced, but it's not a "TV" and it's not part of the HDTV convention of 480i/480p/720p/1080i. There are certainly no channels that broadcast at 1080p, and there is no way to output "1080p" to a screen is with a computer. Of course, you were talking about outputting from a computer, weren't you? Well, then it's a monitor, not a TV. I don't even know what I'm talking about, what's the difference anymore, between a monitor and a TV?
Well it's all about what they're capable of. If they're too primitive, then there's no way they'd be able to decode a message or instructions from us, no matter how we put it. The first step is the hardest part, because you have to establish the lowest level rules of your communication. If they're not advanced enough there's nothing we can do to make it any easier.
Well, even better, is if you not only know the nature of DNA, you also know the standard human template of DNA (as I said in another post). You can then just store how your DNA differs from the standard template, and cut down the size drastically.
Oh by the way, do you see any compelling reason to care what happens to the universe after you die?
If the aliens can get our DNA after our species is extinct, then maybe our species won't be extinct for long.
But even besides that, the alien race would very likely not be DNA based. So they might not even know what it means. But if they are based on DNA, and have a very deep understanding of DNA and how it works, they might be able to create the environment that the DNA needs to function and multiply, from analyzing the DNA itself. It would probably take a lot of work, but I'm sure it could be done, if they're advanced enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't use the word "right." It gives people a false sense of entitlement.
Personally, I believe that curiosity is the mother of invention. But, whatever.
It's true. That's where the real damage from staring at an eclipse comes from. At those frequencies, not only can't you "see" the light, your pupils won't constrict either. So it's much worse than staring at visible light of equivalent intensity, since that would constrict your pupils, and protect you, mostly. With IR, or UV (I think UV is the more dangerous part) your pupils won't constrict making the damage much worse.
Actually, registration is not mandatory. Under U.S. law, copyright exists from the moment a work is created. However, you can't bring suit for infringement if you have not registered. Nor is publication necessary for copyright protection. (Publication is usually defined, in terms of copyright, as making copies available to the public.)
Oh yeah I know. I was phrasing it as if things were already that way, but I meant that this is how copyright "lapsing through neglect" could be implemented.
>Get off it. There never will be anything like "copyright lapsing through neglect". Neglect by who? For how long? How measured?
I was just replying to that, explaining who would be neglecting, and how long before it lapses, and how it's measured.
>Get off it. There never will be anything like "copyright lapsing through neglect". Neglect by who? For how long? How measured?
What are you talking about? It's very simple. You have to register your work if you want the privelege of exclusivity. You have to renew it every 14 years (just as an example). If you don't renew it, it goes into the public domain. The 14 years can be flexible. If someone gets in his application a little late, but it's obvious he meant to renew it, then you can give it to him.
Also, maybe we can charge a small (a few thousand dollars) fee to renew the copyright. If it's making so little money, that it's not worth renewing, then maybe it should go into the public domain. We wouldn't charge any fee upon initial registration, but only for renewals.
Well, suppose there is, in fact, life on Venus. That doesn't mean that given enough time, intelligent life will emerge. Maybe suitable conditions for basic life cover a very broad range, but that doesn't mean intelligent life can survive in such heat.
>Remember, if it was recorded after the early 20s it is still under copyright unless it either lapsed through neglect
But the trouble is there is no such thing as a copyright lapsing through neglect. True, most of the stuff being traded on p2p networks are still under copyright. So the real question is not "are there things being traded that aren't copyrighted?". It's "should all these things be copyrighted?"
Sure, I'd like a lot of things. Like a million dollars. It doesn't mean it there is any sense in awarding it to you. There isn't a single book, movie or song that you would've made, but won't, since copyright isn't your entire lifetime. That's the only issue.
Without copyright the GPL wouldn't be NECESSARY.
It seems like you thought this through some other time, and were looking for a post to respond to, even if it wasn't exactly a "response". I, in fact, believe in copyright as a necessary construct of the law, as the constitution puts it, to promote progress in the arts and useful sciences (or useful arts and sciences?). My personal belief is that copyright should be at most 14 years, and it should not place any restrictions on derivative works. But this is just my opinion, and it has nothing to do with my original post, or the discussion.
By ANYONES measure, even those who are big supporters of copyright, this is abuse. It's kind of like Sega taking out patents on the controller connectors and such, in order to lock people out from selling products that let them hack the Dreamcast. It really has nothing to do with the patent. But by patenting an intrinsic part of the connector, you can prevent anyone from hacking your hardware. This stuff about sega is from a similar story, about a year ago, about customs blocking Lik-Sang, because of some Dreamcast related hacking product.
No, she's was relating her experience in the courts with that specific law and that specific section. Have you actually read the law, and the section in question? I admit, I haven't. But it seems to me like you haven't either. She said that this is explicitly what the law says. I'll look into it, I suppose.
No. That section has so many loopholes that it can almost never be applied. For example, you can only reverse engineer if you want to IMPROVE the security of a product and not undermine it (not that I see the difference). This is according to Robin Gross from EFF, at 2600 H2K2.
No, you're absolutely right. The real problem is that Microsoft is using copyright law to make sure no one reverse engineers their hardware. To me, that's just an abuse of copyright. It really has nothing to do with protected the BIOS that they worked so hard on. It's a way of closing up their hardware, and having the law to back it up. I don't like that.
>Be sure your EasyPass is turned off, right?
For that matter, don't go through tolls, since they photograph EVERY license plate that goes through. There is NO way to travel anonymously in the United States. Ahh well, the Constitution protected us for a while, it was fun while it lasted.
Duh. Another expression for methanol is "wood alcohol".
Ahh, but that's exactly where the problem comes in. There is absolutely no way that the police will use the video ONLY for criminals. It goes against their whole MO.
I agree with all of what you're saying about the legality of taking photos in public. But as a citizen, I don't want law enforcement to be allowed to place video cameras on every corner to watch us systematically. If enough people don't want law enforcement to do that, then we can just outlaw it. It's possible to make it illegal for the police to do something without outlawing it altogether.
You're absolutely right, there shouldn't be a law against taking people's picture without their permission. But our government should not be allowed to put cameras on each and every corner to systematically watch us, if WE DON'T WANT THAT.
Well copyright law should require registration if you want the government enforced privelege of exclusivity. SHOULD
That's called jury nullification, and it's one of the few areas where REAL, average, citizens have the right to directly affect the law and how it's enforced. Yay jury nullication!
What do you mean by that? I love that feature. It lets me resize ANY page. Not just text that doesn't have style sheets. Why would you dislike that?
You're absolutely right. Maybe out of all the chemicals in the universe DNA is the only one which can encode genetic information in a biological process, and therefore any alien life would have to have DNA. I was going to mention that, but I just didn't want to write a rambling post, by mentioning every side possibility, and qualifying my every statement. The point of my post still stands tho. My point was, we can't even guarantee they'd have any idea what DNA means. No matter how smart you are, without actually seeing DNA based life forms, and knowing what base pairs correspond to which amino acids (as far as I know, it's arbitrary), they couldn't possibly figure it out.
I've never heard of 1080p; I don't think it's a real thing. I mean, sure, there are monitors which support 1920x1080 non-interlaced, but it's not a "TV" and it's not part of the HDTV convention of 480i/480p/720p/1080i. There are certainly no channels that broadcast at 1080p, and there is no way to output "1080p" to a screen is with a computer. Of course, you were talking about outputting from a computer, weren't you? Well, then it's a monitor, not a TV. I don't even know what I'm talking about, what's the difference anymore, between a monitor and a TV?
Well it's all about what they're capable of. If they're too primitive, then there's no way they'd be able to decode a message or instructions from us, no matter how we put it. The first step is the hardest part, because you have to establish the lowest level rules of your communication. If they're not advanced enough there's nothing we can do to make it any easier.
Well, even better, is if you not only know the nature of DNA, you also know the standard human template of DNA (as I said in another post). You can then just store how your DNA differs from the standard template, and cut down the size drastically.
Oh by the way, do you see any compelling reason to care what happens to the universe after you die?
If the aliens can get our DNA after our species is extinct, then maybe our species won't be extinct for long.
But even besides that, the alien race would very likely not be DNA based. So they might not even know what it means. But if they are based on DNA, and have a very deep understanding of DNA and how it works, they might be able to create the environment that the DNA needs to function and multiply, from analyzing the DNA itself. It would probably take a lot of work, but I'm sure it could be done, if they're advanced enough.