The inclusion of a 3D accelerometer intrigues me. I'm guessing/hoping there are plans to integrate this into some sort of user interface. An interface designed at least partially around physically moving the unit would be great to have on something as small as a cellphone, as it would reduce the need for thumb-typing or any other kind of extreme dexterity
What evidence do you have that they will allow user-based versions of the LGPL'd parts? They seem to have made it clear that they intend to wall off the OS and make no user-created code usable outside of simple widgets.
If they need to convince management, I'd consider a marketing angle. A wing strong enough to bend in and touch the fuselage could be a teriffic ad for Boeing.
Is it just a fundamental belief on here that copyright holders should have no recourse against violaters?
Those of us who have actually explored the reasons behind copyright know that copyright is an entirely pragmatic solution that mitigates some very real and essential rights and freedoms. There is no fundamental right to copyright. It only exists due to the idea that the removal of those rights is worth the extra money copyright holders get. Most (well, at least some) of us believe that the downsides of the current level of copyright far outweigh the incentive of money that copyright holders get. As such, the extreme amount of legal force the RIAA and its ilk use in protecting their copyright is far beyond what is considered fair and warranted.
In addition, most of us see copyright violations entirely for commercial reasons to be far worse than ones entirely for personal reasons. Commercial copyright violation specifically takes money away from copyright holders and gives it to the violators. Personal copyright violation allows individuals to expose themselves to, increase their knowledge of, and participate in their own culture and that of others. Clearly, one of these purposes is far more noble than the other, and that is why there is a separation between the view of a company breaking copyright and an individual (or a mass of individuals) breaking copyright.
The trouble is that their efforts are influencing people who are entirely unaffiliated with them. The laws they've shoved through congress regarding Internet Radio are a direct attempt to control all music distribution; even those who choose to have nothing to do with RIAA-affilliated music are harshly and negatively affected by this law.
Something just occured to me. The truly skillful troll will manipulate very real elements into something that, while not necessarily correct, serve to evoke a response. The objective is not necessarily real discussion, but just a response from the other elements in the group.
It seems this poster is doing a very good job of that.
A good debate consists of two or more sides who are not only interested in logical, reasoned arguments, but have also studied the issue at hand well enough to have a good grip on what's actually going on. The original post in this thread does not satisfy one of these requirements. *Anyone* studying this issue fairly must conclude that the RIAA's lawsuit is entirely malicious. Even if the original lawsuit was somehow initiated out of incompetence (and not malice), it would be distinctly malicious to continue after very good evidence was presented pointing not only to the innocence of the plaintiff, but strongly suggesting the guilt of an entirely different individual. Not to mention, they have a history of beginning and continuing lawsuits with very little evidence.
The original poster either did not know about these facts, or did and still considered this to be a fair lawsuit. As the person seems to have some level of familiarity with Slashdot, I'm guessing the latter.
VC-1 is a bit different from what you say. It is created from Microsoft's proprietary WMV codec, however it has been ratified by a standards body. Its specification is freely available to anyone who wishes to implement it, independent of Microsoft's will.
Your point on MP3 mostly stands, except for the fact that it is more or less de facto available to anyone who wishes to implement it. Certainly not as good as de jure availablility like Ogg though.
My assertion does not come from the text itself, but from the history surrounding it. I say that this right exists for violent, forced overthrow of the sovereign government largely because that's exactly what they did right before creating the document. This *was* an armed populace overthrowing a tyrannical state.
How would it not be obvious to these people that the ability to do so is essential, as there is no reason a government can't get to that level of corruption?
Have you read this article? The complaint is about the fact that you can't even turn off the Windows Live search, causing any competitor's search software (e.g. Google's) to slow down significantly. Apparently having two things scan a HDD at the same time causes performance problems.
This is a valid complaint!
The entire problem with having MS as a monopoly is the fact that they leverage that monopoly illegally to support their software and trounce on others'. This is a fine example of how to do that, as it makes their stuff look way better than the competition when it doesn't have to.
So, given Bush's complete disregard for the constitution, and the lack on interest in Congress for getting rid of him, why haven't americans rvolted yet? Laziness and complacency. Most people simply don't care about the very real problems our government is having, and are simply happy to live their lives.
Please note that an unwillingness to use a right is no reason to abolish that right.
And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something. Well, it does say the *people's* right to arms shall not be abridged..
The bit about the militia is only the reason for the right. The specific right actually granted is the second part of the sentence, and it does not state a limit to a militia.
Spoken like someone without a true understanding of the U.S. Second Amendment.
Any government has the potential for corruption on a level that can't be undone through avenues made legal by itself. The entire point of the second amendment is to give the society at large the ability to fix this. Our founding fathers recognized this and added the second amendment to the bill of rights for this very reason. They had, in fact, *just* done this with the then-sovereign government.
You could choose to have a plus account, which gives (IIRC) most of the benefits of a paid account for free, with the extras being paid for by ad revenue run on your page.
Well, in a word.... No. Our legal systems rests on the theory of one-rule. That is, the law is applied consistently for everyone. For a citation, see the Magna Carta circa 1215. The point is, if the courts choose to make an exception for one, then they are obliged to make the exception for subsequent claims. Thus, it's the threat of court action that is the enabler.
In this case, the government is still making the decision of who is awarded copyright. Their decision is merely that everyone who applies is awarded copyrigt.
So, assuming that there is no copyright, how will people make money? Lets go with literature, for an example.
1. Bob the Author writes: My Brilliant New Book and I want to read it.
2. Bob offers to sell me one of the 3000 that he had printed.
3. I say "Gee, Bob, somebody already used OCR to scan your book and I can download it for free. Good job, on that though, maybe I'll buy one from you next time!"
4. Bob has no income for his year-long endeavor.
5. Bob gets a job and has no time to write another masterpiece.
If you expect people to pay artists because "it's the right thing to do" then you should ask young artists trying to "break in" how well that goes.
As far as people being able to use the material immediately, that won't matter because without sufficient motivation (ie. financial) there won't be enough material being created to matter.
The whole point of a government grant for this is to give financial assistance to creators. Its whole point is to give the artists money so they can go keep creating.
It is true that this method would mean that the goverment decides who gets the money from this. However, isn't that what's happening now? The government right now is the arbiter of who gets copyright, and thus who gets to benefit from the system.
You are failing to consider the fact that people would *still* be free to create, and even to make money without the assistance of the government. It is entirely possible to sell your own material even after your material has been placed into public domain right now. This(Copyright/this system) is merely government assistance.
Don't forget the benefits of this system as well (properly implemented). With copyright, the people are prohibited from free use of these ideas while they are still under copyright. With this system, the possibility arises of this material being available *immediately*.
The pro-copyright side thinks that the rights copyright provides are necessary. These rights repesent those that are naturally available, and enforcing them through legal means is a good idea. Because of this, things that increase the power of copyright are naturally a good idea (Hence 100-year copyright).
The anti-copyright side (of which I am one) believes that copyright is only a pragmatic rule, that exists because some level of powers helps promote the creation of more material for everyone to use. As there is no other reason for copyright, it loses its reason to exist when it prevents the creation of more material or the ability for everyone to (eventually) use it freely.
The big difference is that one side sees copyright as an end, whereas the other sees it as a means to an end.
As far as replacements, an alternative would be government grants to artists in lieu of the money copyright gives. I consider the BBC to be a prime example of this not only working, but giving better quality material than what a more capitalist copyright-based system can give.
There is the issue of better support. Microsoft only supports products for a limited time. If you want to update Windows 95 (because your business depends on it) to reflect the new time change, you can't go to Microsoft for a patch. As ReactOS is Free, you could go and find some programmer willing to update it whenever you felt the need to.
Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage
on
ReactOS 0.3.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
IIRC, they've actively tried to limit the usage of copyrighted strings to only places where it's technically infeasible to not use them. Places like the registry have to have data in places like/Microsoft/Windows are examples.
And, if I recall a case involving Nintendo and.. Galoob(?) correctly, a simple copyrighted string cannot be used as access control. I'm not absolutely sure it would apply here, but it seems like a workable defense.
Hunh, my experience seems to be different. I've been using Dvorak for about three years, and it only takes me a little while to get re-used to a QWERTY. I have to look at the keyboard at first, and I do make a couple minor errors, but in general I can switch back and forth with ease, even with no regular time spent on a QWERTY keyboard.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... that would require the ability to know its position in 3D space. It'd have to know both north and up at all times.
It may improve GPS if used together with it though.
The inclusion of a 3D accelerometer intrigues me. I'm guessing/hoping there are plans to integrate this into some sort of user interface. An interface designed at least partially around physically moving the unit would be great to have on something as small as a cellphone, as it would reduce the need for thumb-typing or any other kind of extreme dexterity
What evidence do you have that they will allow user-based versions of the LGPL'd parts? They seem to have made it clear that they intend to wall off the OS and make no user-created code usable outside of simple widgets.
If they need to convince management, I'd consider a marketing angle. A wing strong enough to bend in and touch the fuselage could be a teriffic ad for Boeing.
Those of us who have actually explored the reasons behind copyright know that copyright is an entirely pragmatic solution that mitigates some very real and essential rights and freedoms. There is no fundamental right to copyright. It only exists due to the idea that the removal of those rights is worth the extra money copyright holders get. Most (well, at least some) of us believe that the downsides of the current level of copyright far outweigh the incentive of money that copyright holders get. As such, the extreme amount of legal force the RIAA and its ilk use in protecting their copyright is far beyond what is considered fair and warranted.
In addition, most of us see copyright violations entirely for commercial reasons to be far worse than ones entirely for personal reasons. Commercial copyright violation specifically takes money away from copyright holders and gives it to the violators. Personal copyright violation allows individuals to expose themselves to, increase their knowledge of, and participate in their own culture and that of others. Clearly, one of these purposes is far more noble than the other, and that is why there is a separation between the view of a company breaking copyright and an individual (or a mass of individuals) breaking copyright.
The trouble is that their efforts are influencing people who are entirely unaffiliated with them. The laws they've shoved through congress regarding Internet Radio are a direct attempt to control all music distribution; even those who choose to have nothing to do with RIAA-affilliated music are harshly and negatively affected by this law.
Something just occured to me. The truly skillful troll will manipulate very real elements into something that, while not necessarily correct, serve to evoke a response. The objective is not necessarily real discussion, but just a response from the other elements in the group.
It seems this poster is doing a very good job of that.
A good debate consists of two or more sides who are not only interested in logical, reasoned arguments, but have also studied the issue at hand well enough to have a good grip on what's actually going on. The original post in this thread does not satisfy one of these requirements. *Anyone* studying this issue fairly must conclude that the RIAA's lawsuit is entirely malicious. Even if the original lawsuit was somehow initiated out of incompetence (and not malice), it would be distinctly malicious to continue after very good evidence was presented pointing not only to the innocence of the plaintiff, but strongly suggesting the guilt of an entirely different individual. Not to mention, they have a history of beginning and continuing lawsuits with very little evidence.
The original poster either did not know about these facts, or did and still considered this to be a fair lawsuit. As the person seems to have some level of familiarity with Slashdot, I'm guessing the latter.
VC-1 is a bit different from what you say. It is created from Microsoft's proprietary WMV codec, however it has been ratified by a standards body. Its specification is freely available to anyone who wishes to implement it, independent of Microsoft's will.
Your point on MP3 mostly stands, except for the fact that it is more or less de facto available to anyone who wishes to implement it. Certainly not as good as de jure availablility like Ogg though.
..but how usable are they?
My assertion does not come from the text itself, but from the history surrounding it. I say that this right exists for violent, forced overthrow of the sovereign government largely because that's exactly what they did right before creating the document. This *was* an armed populace overthrowing a tyrannical state.
How would it not be obvious to these people that the ability to do so is essential, as there is no reason a government can't get to that level of corruption?
Have you read this article? The complaint is about the fact that you can't even turn off the Windows Live search, causing any competitor's search software (e.g. Google's) to slow down significantly. Apparently having two things scan a HDD at the same time causes performance problems.
This is a valid complaint!
The entire problem with having MS as a monopoly is the fact that they leverage that monopoly illegally to support their software and trounce on others'. This is a fine example of how to do that, as it makes their stuff look way better than the competition when it doesn't have to.
Please note that an unwillingness to use a right is no reason to abolish that right. And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something. Well, it does say the *people's* right to arms shall not be abridged..
The bit about the militia is only the reason for the right. The specific right actually granted is the second part of the sentence, and it does not state a limit to a militia.
Spoken like someone without a true understanding of the U.S. Second Amendment.
Any government has the potential for corruption on a level that can't be undone through avenues made legal by itself. The entire point of the second amendment is to give the society at large the ability to fix this. Our founding fathers recognized this and added the second amendment to the bill of rights for this very reason. They had, in fact, *just* done this with the then-sovereign government.
Does this mean it's evil too?
You could choose to have a plus account, which gives (IIRC) most of the benefits of a paid account for free, with the extras being paid for by ad revenue run on your page.
..and here is its lone adherent.
In this case, the government is still making the decision of who is awarded copyright. Their decision is merely that everyone who applies is awarded copyrigt.
The whole point of a government grant for this is to give financial assistance to creators. Its whole point is to give the artists money so they can go keep creating.
So.. why not have the criteria for getting grant money be the exact same as the current criteria for getting copyright?
And in your original example, the government *is* deciding who gets a copyright. Their decision is merely that everyone who creates something gets it.
It is true that this method would mean that the goverment decides who gets the money from this. However, isn't that what's happening now? The government right now is the arbiter of who gets copyright, and thus who gets to benefit from the system.
You are failing to consider the fact that people would *still* be free to create, and even to make money without the assistance of the government. It is entirely possible to sell your own material even after your material has been placed into public domain right now. This(Copyright/this system) is merely government assistance.
Don't forget the benefits of this system as well (properly implemented). With copyright, the people are prohibited from free use of these ideas while they are still under copyright. With this system, the possibility arises of this material being available *immediately*.
Actually, I see this as the difference:
The pro-copyright side thinks that the rights copyright provides are necessary. These rights repesent those that are naturally available, and enforcing them through legal means is a good idea. Because of this, things that increase the power of copyright are naturally a good idea (Hence 100-year copyright).
The anti-copyright side (of which I am one) believes that copyright is only a pragmatic rule, that exists because some level of powers helps promote the creation of more material for everyone to use. As there is no other reason for copyright, it loses its reason to exist when it prevents the creation of more material or the ability for everyone to (eventually) use it freely.
The big difference is that one side sees copyright as an end, whereas the other sees it as a means to an end.
As far as replacements, an alternative would be government grants to artists in lieu of the money copyright gives. I consider the BBC to be a prime example of this not only working, but giving better quality material than what a more capitalist copyright-based system can give.
I'm not seeing ReactOS there. I know they have a wiki post about participating this year, and I was interested in contributing.
There is the issue of better support. Microsoft only supports products for a limited time. If you want to update Windows 95 (because your business depends on it) to reflect the new time change, you can't go to Microsoft for a patch. As ReactOS is Free, you could go and find some programmer willing to update it whenever you felt the need to.
IIRC, they've actively tried to limit the usage of copyrighted strings to only places where it's technically infeasible to not use them. Places like the registry have to have data in places like /Microsoft/Windows are examples.
And, if I recall a case involving Nintendo and.. Galoob(?) correctly, a simple copyrighted string cannot be used as access control. I'm not absolutely sure it would apply here, but it seems like a workable defense.
Hunh, my experience seems to be different. I've been using Dvorak for about three years, and it only takes me a little while to get re-used to a QWERTY. I have to look at the keyboard at first, and I do make a couple minor errors, but in general I can switch back and forth with ease, even with no regular time spent on a QWERTY keyboard.