Maybe in 20 years or so (without any Trek between now and then) that would be a good option. Right now the fans wouldn't stand for it. BSG had to wait until it had fallen into relative obscurity before anyone even considered it besides some of the old cast members. Yes OBSG has its fans, but they're few and far between. And yes some of them still won't watch the new series, but that's their loss. Anyway, Trek has far, far, far more current fans than BSG did when it was brought back, and its a good bet most current Trek fans wouldn't jump on board a total rewrite of the franchise.
The producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga were tossed off of Trek pretty much indefinitely for how they mishandled Enterprise and the last film. That said, I still don't think this movie is a good move. I think they should let the material rest for a while until the fans actually want more Start Trek. At this point people would rather go without it than see it butchered like it has been over the course of the last decade.
Seriously, with all the mergers in the telecom world what was the point of breaking up Ma Bell in the first place? If this is allowed to continue in a few more years we're going to be right back at square 1 again.
The kids were on what amounts to be a field trip, during which the children are still under the authority of school officials.
Had the kid just walked off of school property and had a smoke, and they tried to punish him for smoking, then no that wouldn't fly since he'd been off school property. Could they get him for leaving the school grounds? Sure.
In this case the kid was well under the school's authority just like any kid would be on a trip to the zoo.
Actually, there will probably be a few stepping stones between now and then before they can actually use it against us like that. First they'll have to guard us from Communism, then it'll be terrorists. Next it will be 3rd world countries, then hijacked spacecraft/weapons. Next we'll turn the weapons around and start facing external threats--this will lead to huge weapons capable of destroying incoming asteroids. Lastly you'll find out about E.T.'s that may or not be a threat so we'll have to develop even more space-based weapons, just in case. Lastly, when no other threats can reasonably be assumed, it will be your great or great-great grandkids the government's invents as a threat.
Note: I can't take credit for that progression since I didn't come up with it. I actually forget where I heard it at back in the 80's, but so far they're correct.
E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply. Guy: But, but, but.... E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply. Guy: Please, I put it down already. Don't shoot! E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.
You said life + 10 or 25 whereas I think it should 10-20 from inception. Period.
Originally, copyrights were only 14 years from the day they were created. My 10-20 years fits nicely with their original structure and intent, which is to say if the copyright doesn't expire while the creator is still alive and kicking, then their purpose is lost completely (that is to light a fire under the creator's butt and get him/her moving on making new *useful* arts and sciences).
Another thing I think should be reconsidered is the value of "entertainment" towards the enrichment of humanity. In other words, should content created for the explicit purpose of entertainment even be granted copyright protection? Personally speaking, I don't think so. Think about it for a moment. In what way does Briney Spear's latest CD advance the quality of human existence?
Don't get me wrong, I think musicians and movie makers should she get paid for their work. However, I think we should be looking at it from another point of view from what we've been groomed into. For example, Michelangelo got paid to do the Sistine chapel (or not, I'm not a history buff). But suppose he did. Does it make sense that everyone going inside to look at his work pay him to view it? Not one iota. He was paid to do a job, that was his incentive and reward. Full stop. Anyone can view it because, well, he was already paid for the job, and admirers may pay him in the future for his skills with a paint brush. Can anyone copy it, not likely. Even pictures of it would be hard to pull off. But if they were able to take pics of it and paste them up in churches all over, then we'd have a problem. My point is, he got paid for his work, not the repeated enjoyment of it, and people could use that work free of change so long as they didn't copy it. I think we can do the same thing in a contemporary sense, but without the beast we have in place today. Bottom line: Artists would be paid for performing their works and their recorded works would be free for personal use. What would be restricted is a reproduction of the performance for personal gain. In fact personal enjoyment of the art form would be encouraged in order to drive up demand for live performances by the content's creator.
"Author's life + 10 or 25 years, whichever is shorter would be more than sufficient for protecting the creator for profit to encourage creation of new content."
I disagree. 10-20 years is all they should be given a copyright for. Its the expiration of income from a given work that inspires one to produce more works. If I come up with a good idea and got paids for it for the rest of my life, what's my inspiration for creating even more works? None. If I know that gravy train is going away soon you best believe I'll be working my butt off on coming up with a new idea to sell.
That's how copyright came into existence. What we have today is an abomination and is in serious need of correction.
One part of me wants to smack Chad upside the head for crying about doing business. Another part wants to smack Chad upside the head for getting into a business that deals with horrendous copyright laws like we have here in the states. Perhaps this debacle can result in a new examination of US copyright laws so that they may be changed back to the way they were intended? You know, for the good of the nation...
Right now things are so lopsided that the end result is going to be the loss of decades upon decades of American culture, all because some greedy a-holes feels they sould be entitled to a buck every time someone wants to take a peek or listen to whatever. And since that's not what copyright was intended for (read: progress of American culture--not its enslavement to compensation), this all just goes to show how copyright has devolved into the un-American beast we have today.
Uh, its one thing to present a click through EULA that takes away your purchase and gives you a license, but how do they get away with what's effectively the same thing when you've paid for physical hardware??? Is there a shrink-wrap contract you have to agree to before opening the box?
You've just described why many are referring to the HD-DVD and BR as the "new laserdisk". IMO they're totally right. The quality increase over DVD is barely there for most that have seen it in action. And if you've got a 720 HD set with an upscaling DVD player, you are REALLY going to be hard-pressed to see an improvement over the 1080p+BR/HD. The only tried and tested benefit to Blueray is that its the better format of the two for data storage (as on the PC).
Aside from data storage, I suggest consumers bypass HD-DVD & Blueray completely and simply stick with their DVDs and 720 HDTV. They're far, far cheaper than the 1080p solution and looks virtually the same. And that's not to mention the limited usage of 1080p in the world by broadcasters. Hell, 1080i is hard enough to find so why waste the money if you don't have to?
To those that think "grey market" is a bad, evil thing, take a good look at that PC you're typing on. If it wasn't for Compaq reverse-engineering the first IBM PC the computer industry as we know it would look extremely different, if exist at all. And those grey market mods for consoles are NO DIFFERENT than the add-ons we have for PCs today.
Sony going out and suing companies that make parts for their hardware is no different that if Dell started suing Bios manufacturers.
Oddly enough you could have been talking about DRM and nobody would have thought twice. Same rules apply: hinders legit users, does nothing to stop piracy.
Capitalism is about maximizing profits. No argument there. My beef is that doing so while cutting out American workers ultimately undermines the foundation of this country. If Amercians in general cannot afford the goods they once produced, eventually the companies that cut them out of a job will falter. Simple economics here. Who do you think can pay $20K for a car that Ford or GM makes? Not the people in mexico making $4 a day, that's for sure. If you want to look at capitalism done right, you merely need to look at Henry Ford and the beginnings of Ford as a company. Same with GM.
Nowadays people are so caught up in stock values, which often only give valuable returns to the heftiest stock holders mind you, that employees are cut in an effort to maximize profits to further drive up stock. Well, once you stop paying the requisite wages for your market to purchase your goods, you end up no being able to sell your own product. Case in point, GM and Ford are cutting how many people right now because they can't sell their products? And this leads me into the circular thinking of job cuts and sagging sales.
If the managment of these companies wouldn't have been so greedy and let their workers pay stay where it was for 50 years prior, they wouldn't find themselves in the situation they're in. The only cause for concern is when foreign producers come into the market with goods made with cheap labor outside the US. However, this can be offset easily enough by tarrifs and import fees.
Yes, this is all a watered down version of what happened to the American auto, steel, and textile industries, but I think you can get the point. The bottom line is this: corporate managment gets greedy, cuts workers benefits/wages, workers cannot afford the goods they produce (same goes for the outsorced workers who earn a pittance of what the American worker made), and ultimately the company falters.
Re:Am I just being overly simplistic...
on
IPv6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
A better solution would be to unlock the 127 network. Poof! A whole shitload of address for people to use, all with just the authoring of an RFC.
Capitalism at the expense of American workers is just plain wrong. It serves only a few and hurts many, and in the end this could very well lead to the destruction of what was once a great society. And all for short-term economic growth.
Ask yourselves which is better: a slow growing company that employs 10K Americans, or a fast growing company that employs 5K Americans and 5K Indians? If you're an American worker the answer is obvious and shows where Capitalism fails our own citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
...did she win?
Maybe in 20 years or so (without any Trek between now and then) that would be a good option. Right now the fans wouldn't stand for it. BSG had to wait until it had fallen into relative obscurity before anyone even considered it besides some of the old cast members. Yes OBSG has its fans, but they're few and far between. And yes some of them still won't watch the new series, but that's their loss. Anyway, Trek has far, far, far more current fans than BSG did when it was brought back, and its a good bet most current Trek fans wouldn't jump on board a total rewrite of the franchise.
The producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga were tossed off of Trek pretty much indefinitely for how they mishandled Enterprise and the last film. That said, I still don't think this movie is a good move. I think they should let the material rest for a while until the fans actually want more Start Trek. At this point people would rather go without it than see it butchered like it has been over the course of the last decade.
Seriously, with all the mergers in the telecom world what was the point of breaking up Ma Bell in the first place? If this is allowed to continue in a few more years we're going to be right back at square 1 again.
The kids were on what amounts to be a field trip, during which the children are still under the authority of school officials.
Had the kid just walked off of school property and had a smoke, and they tried to punish him for smoking, then no that wouldn't fly since he'd been off school property. Could they get him for leaving the school grounds? Sure.
In this case the kid was well under the school's authority just like any kid would be on a trip to the zoo.
Very little risk you say? What about this guy?
_ pass_h.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2006/11/boarding
Actually, there will probably be a few stepping stones between now and then before they can actually use it against us like that. First they'll have to guard us from Communism, then it'll be terrorists. Next it will be 3rd world countries, then hijacked spacecraft/weapons. Next we'll turn the weapons around and start facing external threats--this will lead to huge weapons capable of destroying incoming asteroids. Lastly you'll find out about E.T.'s that may or not be a threat so we'll have to develop even more space-based weapons, just in case. Lastly, when no other threats can reasonably be assumed, it will be your great or great-great grandkids the government's invents as a threat.
Note: I can't take credit for that progression since I didn't come up with it. I actually forget where I heard it at back in the 80's, but so far they're correct.
He's off somewhere recalculating the odds of his winnings, and probably getting really high.
E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.
...
Guy: But, but, but....
E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.
Guy: Please, I put it down already. Don't shoot!
E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.
Guy:
E.D.-209: Thank you for your compliance.
You said life + 10 or 25 whereas I think it should 10-20 from inception. Period.
Originally, copyrights were only 14 years from the day they were created. My 10-20 years fits nicely with their original structure and intent, which is to say if the copyright doesn't expire while the creator is still alive and kicking, then their purpose is lost completely (that is to light a fire under the creator's butt and get him/her moving on making new *useful* arts and sciences).
Another thing I think should be reconsidered is the value of "entertainment" towards the enrichment of humanity. In other words, should content created for the explicit purpose of entertainment even be granted copyright protection? Personally speaking, I don't think so. Think about it for a moment. In what way does Briney Spear's latest CD advance the quality of human existence?
Don't get me wrong, I think musicians and movie makers should she get paid for their work. However, I think we should be looking at it from another point of view from what we've been groomed into. For example, Michelangelo got paid to do the Sistine chapel (or not, I'm not a history buff). But suppose he did. Does it make sense that everyone going inside to look at his work pay him to view it? Not one iota. He was paid to do a job, that was his incentive and reward. Full stop. Anyone can view it because, well, he was already paid for the job, and admirers may pay him in the future for his skills with a paint brush. Can anyone copy it, not likely. Even pictures of it would be hard to pull off. But if they were able to take pics of it and paste them up in churches all over, then we'd have a problem. My point is, he got paid for his work, not the repeated enjoyment of it, and people could use that work free of change so long as they didn't copy it. I think we can do the same thing in a contemporary sense, but without the beast we have in place today. Bottom line: Artists would be paid for performing their works and their recorded works would be free for personal use. What would be restricted is a reproduction of the performance for personal gain. In fact personal enjoyment of the art form would be encouraged in order to drive up demand for live performances by the content's creator.
"Author's life + 10 or 25 years, whichever is shorter would be more than sufficient for protecting the creator for profit to encourage creation of new content."
I disagree. 10-20 years is all they should be given a copyright for. Its the expiration of income from a given work that inspires one to produce more works. If I come up with a good idea and got paids for it for the rest of my life, what's my inspiration for creating even more works? None. If I know that gravy train is going away soon you best believe I'll be working my butt off on coming up with a new idea to sell.
That's how copyright came into existence. What we have today is an abomination and is in serious need of correction.
One part of me wants to smack Chad upside the head for crying about doing business. Another part wants to smack Chad upside the head for getting into a business that deals with horrendous copyright laws like we have here in the states. Perhaps this debacle can result in a new examination of US copyright laws so that they may be changed back to the way they were intended? You know, for the good of the nation...
Right now things are so lopsided that the end result is going to be the loss of decades upon decades of American culture, all because some greedy a-holes feels they sould be entitled to a buck every time someone wants to take a peek or listen to whatever. And since that's not what copyright was intended for (read: progress of American culture--not its enslavement to compensation), this all just goes to show how copyright has devolved into the un-American beast we have today.
I take it you haven't seen the film Man of the Year. Electronic voting got its ass handed to it.
Uh, its one thing to present a click through EULA that takes away your purchase and gives you a license, but how do they get away with what's effectively the same thing when you've paid for physical hardware??? Is there a shrink-wrap contract you have to agree to before opening the box?
How is this different? What exactly did I miss here?
This was already posted like 26 hours ago. Talk about your short-term memory!
2 4231
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/27/21
You've just described why many are referring to the HD-DVD and BR as the "new laserdisk". IMO they're totally right. The quality increase over DVD is barely there for most that have seen it in action. And if you've got a 720 HD set with an upscaling DVD player, you are REALLY going to be hard-pressed to see an improvement over the 1080p+BR/HD. The only tried and tested benefit to Blueray is that its the better format of the two for data storage (as on the PC).
Aside from data storage, I suggest consumers bypass HD-DVD & Blueray completely and simply stick with their DVDs and 720 HDTV. They're far, far cheaper than the 1080p solution and looks virtually the same. And that's not to mention the limited usage of 1080p in the world by broadcasters. Hell, 1080i is hard enough to find so why waste the money if you don't have to?
To those that think "grey market" is a bad, evil thing, take a good look at that PC you're typing on. If it wasn't for Compaq reverse-engineering the first IBM PC the computer industry as we know it would look extremely different, if exist at all. And those grey market mods for consoles are NO DIFFERENT than the add-ons we have for PCs today.
Sony going out and suing companies that make parts for their hardware is no different that if Dell started suing Bios manufacturers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this already posted back in May 06? So what's different with this story?
Oddly enough you could have been talking about DRM and nobody would have thought twice. Same rules apply: hinders legit users, does nothing to stop piracy.
Nope. Its called youporn.
Capitalism is about maximizing profits. No argument there. My beef is that doing so while cutting out American workers ultimately undermines the foundation of this country. If Amercians in general cannot afford the goods they once produced, eventually the companies that cut them out of a job will falter. Simple economics here. Who do you think can pay $20K for a car that Ford or GM makes? Not the people in mexico making $4 a day, that's for sure. If you want to look at capitalism done right, you merely need to look at Henry Ford and the beginnings of Ford as a company. Same with GM.
Nowadays people are so caught up in stock values, which often only give valuable returns to the heftiest stock holders mind you, that employees are cut in an effort to maximize profits to further drive up stock. Well, once you stop paying the requisite wages for your market to purchase your goods, you end up no being able to sell your own product. Case in point, GM and Ford are cutting how many people right now because they can't sell their products? And this leads me into the circular thinking of job cuts and sagging sales.
If the managment of these companies wouldn't have been so greedy and let their workers pay stay where it was for 50 years prior, they wouldn't find themselves in the situation they're in. The only cause for concern is when foreign producers come into the market with goods made with cheap labor outside the US. However, this can be offset easily enough by tarrifs and import fees.
Yes, this is all a watered down version of what happened to the American auto, steel, and textile industries, but I think you can get the point. The bottom line is this: corporate managment gets greedy, cuts workers benefits/wages, workers cannot afford the goods they produce (same goes for the outsorced workers who earn a pittance of what the American worker made), and ultimately the company falters.
A better solution would be to unlock the 127 network. Poof! A whole shitload of address for people to use, all with just the authoring of an RFC.
Uh, isn't this what reverse engineering is all about? If it wasn't for such ingenuity we wouldn't have the phrase "IBM PC Compatible".
Think about it.
Capitalism at the expense of American workers is just plain wrong. It serves only a few and hurts many, and in the end this could very well lead to the destruction of what was once a great society. And all for short-term economic growth.
Ask yourselves which is better: a slow growing company that employs 10K Americans, or a fast growing company that employs 5K Americans and 5K Indians? If you're an American worker the answer is obvious and shows where Capitalism fails our own citizens.