I think another problem is the fact that most rights-holders are not the actual creators, but corporations. This makes the life + 70 years valuable to them only, not to the creator of a work after he/she dies. (As a side note, how is a creator incented to create more if they have a lifetime copyright? One big hit and they could financially be "set for life".) I think it's a loophole that if a recording artist transfers the copyright to their songs to a record company (sometimes before the actual music is written) the record company can then still credit the artist as the creator and the life+70years rule still applies, where a "work for hire" situation would limit the copyright term to 95 years from publishing or 125 years from creation, whichever expires sooner. (not really much of a limit anyway).
Police need public respect. Using tasers maintains public respect. If the police followed the advice of the liberal hippies on Slashdot, they would have no public respect just like the liberal hippies on Slashdot.
I think you are mistaking respect with fear. Respect is EARNED with good service while fear is created by threat of force. The use of tasers in this instance actually decreases respect for the officers.
Slashdot says: Taser him once and carry him out. Carrying / Dragging him out would definately cause a scene for a lot of reasons. And once outside, he would raise hell outside, and libraries (quite places) don't need crazy people outside screaming The best thing for the police would be for him to leave on his own accord. The mere fact that he is unwilling to do this implies that he wants to make the police look bad. Just this want alone warrents the taserings.
Like the officers didn't cause a bigger scene by choosing that course of action. Oh, and they didn't need the student's help in looking bad, judging from the outrage exibited by the bystanders.
Second, it's always best when police don't have to touch the criminals. The criminals might fight back, and will ultamately lose, but they might cut the officers skin with their nails or whatever, and manage to transfer their STD's to the police. It is not the job of the police to put themselves at risk (even a little bit) to make the life of crimials less harsh.
But that is besides the point because this was not a criminal, just a PITA university student. He wasn't resisting arrest because he wasn't arrested and charged until after the incident.
The CSO's were not the one's tasering the guy. When he didn't show id, they called in the campus police, who, as the parent mentioned, are SUPPOSED to be "real officers" or were you just not paying attention.
A discussion somewhere else (can't remember) mentioned that common law-enforcement models convert between 2 methods. The first method fires the 2 electrodes on wires that touch the skin, the 2nd method sends a spark across a gap that needs to be against the skin. It's the 2nd method you can sometimes see people "testing" where a blue spark arcs across a 2" gap on the end of the unit. I'ts hard to see with the video but I am guessing they were using the 2nd method.
And did you catch the part near the end when the cop tells one of the students standing there watching that if he doesn't step back he will get tasered, too?
...TV's leading expert, who said in a recent interview "Me abuse cookies? No way! See? (Hey, you know where me can get some biscotti? C'mon, help a monster out. Just this once. Me can stop any time me wants.)"
I don't know how accurate the stuff the guy from the article was saying, but it does seem logical that if you are trying to maintain a service on university and donated servers, you really can't have commercial applications using it. Also, if the freeware access reaches critical mass, you will cripple your donated servers, and probably piss off a few friends/IT contacts in the process. Nobody wants to burn bridges.
So would you rather have Gracenote or Microsoft dominating this area. Or the RIAA.
How can they lump together malicious actions like intentionally disseminating virii or trojans with chatting or emailing anonymously?
Even worse, what if you sign up for the ID and you get a worm that disseminates a virus? 4 years in jail for something you didn't even know what happening.
Re:There is no such thing as bad publicity
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
So the owner of Universal Tube complained that his site was crippled when it got 68 million hits for all of august. Yet they were able to manage 20-million hits in one day - the day the news article about them hit the web.
Should they be suing every news website? The entire blogosphere? Maybe they are just suing google to see if they will settle by hosting utube.com for them.
I love listening to the radio because it doesn't give me what I ask for; rather I get an endless supply of surprises, some of which are life enhancing.
This is exactly what I like about satellite radio. It has been a long time since am/fm radio has done this for me and that includes commercial and non-commercial radio.
That brings up an interesting question. How would the framers have written this clause if they had known of an (essentially) free distribution method that would prevent someone from maintaining their limited monopoly?
Hmm, maybe this is a better question: Can we the people lobby the legislature to terminate the monopoly of all creative "works-for-hire" owned by RIAA companies?
So, you're saying that if I spend a year of my free time creating a fantasy game,
I think a related point is that software companies HAVE been able to find business models that survive in an environment where data can be copied almost effortlessly. Think of MMO games. The game data itself is not valuable to the company even though they spend sometimes millions creating it, its the service they provide that makes them money. They practically give away the data, and some even encourage you to share your disks with your friends. Another example can be found in web-based applications. How do you pirate Basecamp? Or digg? Or google? At some point everyone's bound to realize that sticking bits in boxes and lining the store shelves with them is a 20th-century business model based on a 19th-century business model. (perhaps even a 15th-century one)
I do agree that a total lack of copyright and patent protection (I REFUSE to use the oxymoron "intellectual property") is bad and I think it would result in the decline of the arts and sciences in general. However, copyright has strayed way too far from it's original intent, it was never meant to help support the business models of media conglomerates, but since they own the lawmakers, they write the laws and indefinite copyright extention is inevitable.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet when /. posters make the same points they get modded up.
Are they too lazy to just secure their wireless network?
maybe the installers stirred up some asbestos when they installed the network
Don't forget the cordless phones! Will someone please think of the children and get rid of the cordless phones?
I think another problem is the fact that most rights-holders are not the actual creators, but corporations. This makes the life + 70 years valuable to them only, not to the creator of a work after he/she dies. (As a side note, how is a creator incented to create more if they have a lifetime copyright? One big hit and they could financially be "set for life".) I think it's a loophole that if a recording artist transfers the copyright to their songs to a record company (sometimes before the actual music is written) the record company can then still credit the artist as the creator and the life+70years rule still applies, where a "work for hire" situation would limit the copyright term to 95 years from publishing or 125 years from creation, whichever expires sooner. (not really much of a limit anyway).
Parent set you up for a nice lowbrow joke, but then you went off on a tangent. -1 joke fumble
We would have accepted "I guess you haven't seen the new unauthorized patch for FF XI"
or
"sims online, of course"
I thought it was common knowledge that his catchphrase is "I'll cut your mic".
I think HE even made a joke about it on The Daily Show.
Like the officers didn't cause a bigger scene by choosing that course of action. Oh, and they didn't need the student's help in looking bad, judging from the outrage exibited by the bystanders.
But that is besides the point because this was not a criminal, just a PITA university student. He wasn't resisting arrest because he wasn't arrested and charged until after the incident.
A pass back home? To where, LA? He was BORN IN THE US you idiot.
The CSO's were not the one's tasering the guy. When he didn't show id, they called in the campus police, who, as the parent mentioned, are SUPPOSED to be "real officers" or were you just not paying attention.
A discussion somewhere else (can't remember) mentioned that common law-enforcement models convert between 2 methods. The first method fires the 2 electrodes on wires that touch the skin, the 2nd method sends a spark across a gap that needs to be against the skin. It's the 2nd method you can sometimes see people "testing" where a blue spark arcs across a 2" gap on the end of the unit. I'ts hard to see with the video but I am guessing they were using the 2nd method.
And did you catch the part near the end when the cop tells one of the students standing there watching that if he doesn't step back he will get tasered, too?
I live in the suburbs in the US and I see people of all ages using the camera on their phones nearly every day.
Too bad there is only a 50% chance it will work. They are on the PAL system there but some TV's work with NTSC as well.
I guess marketing will have to come out with a new slogan. "Where u at?!" will now be meaningless since, well, I can see "where you at."
...TV's leading expert, who said in a recent interview "Me abuse cookies? No way! See? (Hey, you know where me can get some biscotti? C'mon, help a monster out. Just this once. Me can stop any time me wants.)"
I don't know how accurate the stuff the guy from the article was saying, but it does seem logical that if you are trying to maintain a service on university and donated servers, you really can't have commercial applications using it. Also, if the freeware access reaches critical mass, you will cripple your donated servers, and probably piss off a few friends/IT contacts in the process. Nobody wants to burn bridges.
So would you rather have Gracenote or Microsoft dominating this area. Or the RIAA.
How can they lump together malicious actions like intentionally disseminating virii or trojans with chatting or emailing anonymously?
Even worse, what if you sign up for the ID and you get a worm that disseminates a virus? 4 years in jail for something you didn't even know what happening.
Maybe something like this would help:
http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/eulalyzer.html
So the owner of Universal Tube complained that his site was crippled when it got 68 million hits for all of august. Yet they were able to manage 20-million hits in one day - the day the news article about them hit the web.
Should they be suing every news website? The entire blogosphere? Maybe they are just suing google to see if they will settle by hosting utube.com for them.
What I thought was funny about it is not that American's are "ruining" English, its that the British are always complaining about it.
That brings up an interesting question. How would the framers have written this clause if they had known of an (essentially) free distribution method that would prevent someone from maintaining their limited monopoly?
Hmm, maybe this is a better question: Can we the people lobby the legislature to terminate the monopoly of all creative "works-for-hire" owned by RIAA companies?
I think a related point is that software companies HAVE been able to find business models that survive in an environment where data can be copied almost effortlessly. Think of MMO games. The game data itself is not valuable to the company even though they spend sometimes millions creating it, its the service they provide that makes them money. They practically give away the data, and some even encourage you to share your disks with your friends. Another example can be found in web-based applications. How do you pirate Basecamp? Or digg? Or google? At some point everyone's bound to realize that sticking bits in boxes and lining the store shelves with them is a 20th-century business model based on a 19th-century business model. (perhaps even a 15th-century one)
I do agree that a total lack of copyright and patent protection (I REFUSE to use the oxymoron "intellectual property") is bad and I think it would result in the decline of the arts and sciences in general. However, copyright has strayed way too far from it's original intent, it was never meant to help support the business models of media conglomerates, but since they own the lawmakers, they write the laws and indefinite copyright extention is inevitable.
Cite 1 reference where this has happened IRL.