Yes, they know who they are. If you RTFA you will see that one of them has already filed a statement saying that they have completely removed KaZaA from their computer.
I discovered after I left the company that my changes were eventually submitted to the package maintainer, and that my boss had taken credit for them.
I'm trying to figure out -- are you pissed about this or happy? It sounds like you're pissed, but perhaps you should be happy that at least the code got back to where it "belongs"! I know, it sucks that your boss screwed you like that, but the GPL is based on "for the good of mankind" theories, and it seems like ultimately this limelight-stealing bastard did something good (though his motives were probably selfish).
And if someone else in your company finds the company's code in the source and they just happen to know that you were working on that project? What then? Is it worth losing your job over?
How the heck it's rendered I dont care. But docbook must be the obvious choice ?
docbook is good for technical documentation (hence the "doc" part of the name), but not for general purpose use. Believe it or not, there are a lot of publishers out there who do not publish computer manuals.
Can somebody tell me why eBooks are better than audio content? What can possibly be done with electronic text, that cannot be accomplished through audio content? I can understand that audio books are much more expensive to produce, but surely we are nearing the point where synthetic computer voices can "read" the original text, instead of having to employ human voice actors. That being the case, what's the use?
Well, for one thing, so that a person can read the book for themselves (but that's too obvious so I won't fault you for not thinking of it).
I listen to audio books all the time and I enjoy them. But in every case, where I have both read the book and listened to the audio book, I have been disappointed with how the reader has interpreted certain portions of it (through voice inflection, pauses, etc.). This is even the case when the author is the one reading. I'm guessing it's not any better, and possibly (probably) worse, with synthesized readers.
It's the same thing as saying "If there's a movie, why read the book?" It's because some (actually, many) people actually enjoy reading.
Furthermore, how do you think text-to-speech programs work? YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE TEXT IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT FIRST! If you have a standard, open format for reading ebooks, then it's much easier for people to make all sorts of other derivitive formats, such as for reading on a desktop, reading on a palmtop, or even converting to audio. An open format creates possibilities, not restricts them.
As for how synthetic voices sound, there are some decent programs out there, but none of them are cheap. It's still a cost-benefit analysis -- yes, hiring someone to read (especially somebody good) is probably more expensive than getting the software, but you get better quality.
If seatbelts weren't required, hospitals would have even greater demands on them. Hence the law. I feel that governments have the perfect right to curtail behaviour that puts higher demand on government services.
No, not necessarily. As I said in my previous post (and which you so haughtily ignored), there is no evidence that this is the case. 1) responders still need to respond to the scene of an accident, regardless of who was wearing seatbelts and who wasn't. 2) Most of the time, accident victims, whether hurt minorly or not, will still visit the hospital.
In addition to this, there are studies that have indicated that drivers who wear seatbelts are generally more agressive because they feel safer. More aggressive drivers leads to more accidents. Sure, they're wearing their seatbelts, so the overall individual effect may be less harm to themselves, but accidents don't always involve only people in cars. They also involve pedestrians, bicyclists, and Amish people (not to mention their horses). More accidents cause insurance premiums to go up, not just for those involved in the crash but for everybody. Increased danger from agressive drivers and higher premiums both hurt society.
And finally, just because injuries/deaths are down in generally doesn't necessarily mean it's due to the wearing of seatbelts. More cars these days also have airbags, some of them even have side-impact airbags. Also, cars are generally sturdier. These things may also be the reasons for fewer major injuries.
First obvious point: It's always their choice. The car doesn't have a sensor in it to not let it start if the seatbelt isn't worn. They can drive without a seatbelt. It's just now, in addition to risking greater injury in the event of an accident, they also risk getting fined.
First obvious retort: If a person always has a choice, and if a law doesn't hinder the effect of that choice, then why have the law?
But you must not really believe that. It was just an attempt at a quick and witty reply. Really, the fact that there is a law probably does hinder one's choice (or at least artificially weigh a person's options heavily in favor of one--the one for which the law is written). Also, you have to consider that with the law has come increased education about the benefits of wearing a seatbelt (i.e., you're less likely to die or be seriously injured). It's hard to determine which one really is the reason. I'm all for education about seatbelts--just not making wearing them a law.
Second obvious point: Yes, seatbelts sometimes result in greater harm than they do good. Laws are aimed at the benefit of society as a whole, not individuals. On the whole, society is helped by seatbelt laws.
Second obvious retort: There's no evidence that seatbelt laws significantly benefit society as a whole. See above.
[example about vaccinations deleted as it is like comparing apples to oranges]
The desire to have governments not intrude on these apparently individual (and often common sense) choices is, at heart, an entirely selfish one.
Yes and no. Individual choice is certainly selfish, but if everybody in a society can choose for themselves, then it benefits society as a whole.
To quote Ayn Rand: "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."
Yeah, yeah, I know what you're gonna say -- "It's not an oppression" and blah, blah, blah. But the simple fact is, before seatbelt laws were passed, people were allowed to choose; that's freedom. Now they are not; the former freedom has been taken away, and that's an oppression.
Bad example. Not wearing a seat belt affects more than you (believe it or not).
The poster's argument wasn't about choice; it was about common sense. Your assumption (that the poster would choose not to wear one because it affects only himself/herself) is attacking a straw man. The poster never said why wearing a seatbelt was common sense. It is quite possible that s/he agrees with everything you said.
Having said that.
Assume you get involved in an accident[1], and you weren't wearing your seatbelt. Because of that, you get hurt quite badly when you wouldn't have been if you had worn your seatbelt[2].
First of all, it's fallacious to say that seat-belt wearers will be hurt less than other people. More on this below.
Emergency services have to come out and help you now, you go to a hospital, and you tie up doctors, nurses, and space that other people need.
This could just as easily happen if you are wearing a seatbelt. Wearing a seatbelt is not a "get out of the emergency room free" card.
Most of the time, some sort of emergency services will respond to the scene regardless of whether or not the victim is wearing a seatbelt. And many times a person will go to the hospital regardless of their seatbelt-wearing status.
Furthermore, you can get injured just walking down the street. Does that mean we should ban walking down the street because of "the potential drain on society's resources"?
Even if you pay for all of those services 100%, you still can't deny that you tied up resources that may have been needed elsewhere.
This is true for any accident, no matter what. A good medical institution will determine on a case by case basis what resources they can commit to a patient. It's called triage.
What's the penalty for not wearing a seatbelt where you are? Here, it's a fine; considering that the partial reimbursement back to society.
It's a fine here as well, but it goes to the cops, not the hospitals or emergency workers who respond to the scene of accidents. If it's a reimbursement, it's a misallocated one. Also, it's used as a (probably ineffective) deterrant ("Wear your seatbelt or pay $75!"), not a "repayment".
Laws designed to curtail behaviour that has negative impacts on other people, or society as a whole, are not wasteful.
Yes, but laws that force you to wear a seatbelt don't curtail any negative impact on society. Everything you said is true of any accident, whether the victim was wearing a seatbelt or not -- or even whether the accident involves an automobile or not!
Or would you prefer a law that if you weren't wearing a seatbelt, then you don't get medical treatment in the event of an accident? I'd accept either...
Hell, why stop there? Let's have a law that medical institutions don't have to treat you if you jaywalk! Or better yet, let's have a law that says they don't have to treat you if you have no foreseeable way to pay them back, since by not paying them you are draining society's resources.
Hospitals cannot (legally) make determinations about who they can treat, whether a law was broken or not. Nor should they be allowed to.
Yes, sometimes wearing the seatbelt causes you to get hurt more than you would have if you didn't. Those cases are far less likely than the reverse.
So you're saying the government is allowed to (pre-)determine for me a choice that could affect my living or dying? Do you think they should be able to do this in every case? What if I am going to have surgery where I have a 10% chance that I could die or be severely maimed? Because it's "only a 10% chance" does that mean the government gets to decide for me?
This is the dumbest argument. Those people who die or are severly hurt by seat belts should not have been legally bound to wear them. Perhaps they would've worn them anyway, perhaps not, but at least it would've been their choice and not the government's.
That once your garbage hits the curb, its public domain. I think this should constitute..
For my own curiosity, does this include dumpsters? I mean, technically, you could be taken for trespassers if the dumpster is on the property (which it probably is). A friend and I were caught dumpster diving a few years back, and though the cops didn't do anything except get our information (we had no ID on us, and they gave us a hard time about that, but since that's not illegal -- yet -- there was nothing they could do). But they told us that we were trespassing and if we did again they'd arrest us. I'm guessing they were bull-sh***ing us, but I don't really know.
Anyway, I guess my question is, what's the definition of a "curb"? If you hire a dumpster, does that mean the stuff in the dumpster is PD? Or does it belong to the dumpster owner?
Her father took / used revealing photos of her for his product?
No, the photo on the Madster website is not revealing in any way. The photo on her blog, however.... yum!!! That's her site, though, not her dad's. I'm saying, "Give me more!"
Also, she's 18 dude -- old enough to do things for herself.
If this is what they're complaining about then they won't win because copying CDs to hard drives isn't even nearly illegal unless you distribute the music.
Well, the whole idea of a streaming internet radio station is to distribute music. However, as long as they pay the royalties, the RIAA has no case.
Record labels allege in the suit that in preparing to launch the radio service, Streamcast bought thousands of CDs with thousands of songs and then transferred the music onto a digital database on computer hard drives and other memory devices without the permission of the copyright owners.
I'm sorry, but why would they have to notify the copyright owners? There are thousands of radio stations that do this same exact thing.
Now, if Morpheus planned on not paying appropriate royalties, there might be a case. There might also be a (unjest, nevertheless still legal) case if any of those CDs are copy-protected. But simply making a database should not be illegal.
Hopefully this will be dismissed for the farce it is. Morpheus should countersue the RIAA for filing frivolent lawsuits.
I guess they've managed to convince everybody that a copyright owner has the right to his copyright indefinetly. Tack one more attempt onto the "Mickey Mouse for Disney" preservation act. It's this sort of fundamental shift in perception that is the hardest to fight. Just reading the main post gives people that idea.
This is precisely the problem, and it's a problem of the MASSES too. I recently had a conversation with a friend and his wife about this, and the wife was completely convinced that creators (companies included) should be paid for "their work". When I explained that most of Disney's feature animations (and much of their other stuff) are taken from stories in the public domain she was still unconvinced. "They" were the ones who "did all the work". Whatever. I then proceded to explain that placing something in the public domain doesn't preclude the "creators" from making money from it. It just means ANYBODY can make money from it, as well as improve on it.
The thing is, both my friend and his wife are staunch capitalists. Yet they (especially the wife) didn't see how the public domain actually promotes capitalism and competition. It's just another example of how screwed up people's viewpoints have become in CORPORATE AMERICA (which is not the same as CAPITALIST AMERICA).
Second,
Don't corporations own copyrights as well? It would become part of the 'day to day' activities of running a corporations to automatically see if any copyrights need updating, then update them, regardless if they are making money or not. this would effectively keep works out of the public domain forever. even if the corporation should fail, another one will buy it's assets.
Yes, corporations own copyrights (obviously, or else why would Disney have supported the CTEA?), and yes renewing copyrights would be part of the daily operation of a company -- just like it used to be back when everybody still had to register copyrights.
What you're missing, though, is that the act DOES say that the copyright would eventually expire. Essentially there are two dates to worry about: Fifty years after the initial registration, and then the maximum copyright limit (which is currently author's life + 70 years, or 95 years flat for a corporation). If the company pays their renewal fees every year (or couple of years), then they will retain the copyright on their works ONLY UNTIL the copyright will expire "normally".
Only if Congress continues to play it's ugly "we're only extending it for a limited time" game will the perpetual copyright be a problem. But hey, let's face it, that's the problem now.
Yes, this bill is only incrementally better than what most people on/. want, but incrementally better is better than incrementally worse. I applaud Eric et al for coming up with proposed legislation -- nobody else is doing it, and at least they have taken the initiative to do something!
Imagine a store, iTMS if you want, where all Artists, be they members of major labels or not, show up on the same page. Combine this with the 30 second previews, and all of a sudden, everyone can hear *any* band; the absolute success of a band will no longer depend on labels (though I'm sure influence will be strong depending who you're signed to).
Yes, and then the RIAA says, "Post our music above theirs (or worse, don't post theirs at all) or else we won't let you sell our music anymore." That's when iTMS says farewell to the indies....
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, you don't even have to give specifics. You merely have to state that you suspect somebody is violating your intellectual property.
That's dumb and counter-productive. Verizon has been supporting (probably at significant legal costs to themselves) the rights of these people to remain anonymous. To turn around and sue them is, to use a cliché, like biting the hand that feeds you.
Yes, they know who they are. If you RTFA you will see that one of them has already filed a statement saying that they have completely removed KaZaA from their computer.
I'm trying to figure out -- are you pissed about this or happy? It sounds like you're pissed, but perhaps you should be happy that at least the code got back to where it "belongs"! I know, it sucks that your boss screwed you like that, but the GPL is based on "for the good of mankind" theories, and it seems like ultimately this limelight-stealing bastard did something good (though his motives were probably selfish).
Kinda makes for an ethical paradox, eh?
docbook is good for technical documentation (hence the "doc" part of the name), but not for general purpose use. Believe it or not, there are a lot of publishers out there who do not publish computer manuals.
Well, for one thing, so that a person can read the book for themselves (but that's too obvious so I won't fault you for not thinking of it).
I listen to audio books all the time and I enjoy them. But in every case, where I have both read the book and listened to the audio book, I have been disappointed with how the reader has interpreted certain portions of it (through voice inflection, pauses, etc.). This is even the case when the author is the one reading. I'm guessing it's not any better, and possibly (probably) worse, with synthesized readers.
It's the same thing as saying "If there's a movie, why read the book?" It's because some (actually, many) people actually enjoy reading.
Furthermore, how do you think text-to-speech programs work? YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE TEXT IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT FIRST! If you have a standard, open format for reading ebooks, then it's much easier for people to make all sorts of other derivitive formats, such as for reading on a desktop, reading on a palmtop, or even converting to audio. An open format creates possibilities, not restricts them.
As for how synthetic voices sound, there are some decent programs out there, but none of them are cheap. It's still a cost-benefit analysis -- yes, hiring someone to read (especially somebody good) is probably more expensive than getting the software, but you get better quality.
No, not necessarily. As I said in my previous post (and which you so haughtily ignored), there is no evidence that this is the case. 1) responders still need to respond to the scene of an accident, regardless of who was wearing seatbelts and who wasn't. 2) Most of the time, accident victims, whether hurt minorly or not, will still visit the hospital.
In addition to this, there are studies that have indicated that drivers who wear seatbelts are generally more agressive because they feel safer. More aggressive drivers leads to more accidents. Sure, they're wearing their seatbelts, so the overall individual effect may be less harm to themselves, but accidents don't always involve only people in cars. They also involve pedestrians, bicyclists, and Amish people (not to mention their horses). More accidents cause insurance premiums to go up, not just for those involved in the crash but for everybody. Increased danger from agressive drivers and higher premiums both hurt society.
And finally, just because injuries/deaths are down in generally doesn't necessarily mean it's due to the wearing of seatbelts. More cars these days also have airbags, some of them even have side-impact airbags. Also, cars are generally sturdier. These things may also be the reasons for fewer major injuries.
First obvious retort: If a person always has a choice, and if a law doesn't hinder the effect of that choice, then why have the law?
But you must not really believe that. It was just an attempt at a quick and witty reply. Really, the fact that there is a law probably does hinder one's choice (or at least artificially weigh a person's options heavily in favor of one--the one for which the law is written). Also, you have to consider that with the law has come increased education about the benefits of wearing a seatbelt (i.e., you're less likely to die or be seriously injured). It's hard to determine which one really is the reason. I'm all for education about seatbelts--just not making wearing them a law.
Second obvious retort: There's no evidence that seatbelt laws significantly benefit society as a whole. See above.
[example about vaccinations deleted as it is like comparing apples to oranges]
Yes and no. Individual choice is certainly selfish, but if everybody in a society can choose for themselves, then it benefits society as a whole.
To quote Ayn Rand: "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."
Yeah, yeah, I know what you're gonna say -- "It's not an oppression" and blah, blah, blah. But the simple fact is, before seatbelt laws were passed, people were allowed to choose; that's freedom. Now they are not; the former freedom has been taken away, and that's an oppression.
The poster's argument wasn't about choice; it was about common sense. Your assumption (that the poster would choose not to wear one because it affects only himself/herself) is attacking a straw man. The poster never said why wearing a seatbelt was common sense. It is quite possible that s/he agrees with everything you said.
Having said that.
First of all, it's fallacious to say that seat-belt wearers will be hurt less than other people. More on this below.
This could just as easily happen if you are wearing a seatbelt. Wearing a seatbelt is not a "get out of the emergency room free" card.
Most of the time, some sort of emergency services will respond to the scene regardless of whether or not the victim is wearing a seatbelt. And many times a person will go to the hospital regardless of their seatbelt-wearing status.
Furthermore, you can get injured just walking down the street. Does that mean we should ban walking down the street because of "the potential drain on society's resources"?
This is true for any accident, no matter what. A good medical institution will determine on a case by case basis what resources they can commit to a patient. It's called triage.
It's a fine here as well, but it goes to the cops, not the hospitals or emergency workers who respond to the scene of accidents. If it's a reimbursement, it's a misallocated one. Also, it's used as a (probably ineffective) deterrant ("Wear your seatbelt or pay $75!"), not a "repayment".
Yes, but laws that force you to wear a seatbelt don't curtail any negative impact on society. Everything you said is true of any accident, whether the victim was wearing a seatbelt or not -- or even whether the accident involves an automobile or not!
Hell, why stop there? Let's have a law that medical institutions don't have to treat you if you jaywalk! Or better yet, let's have a law that says they don't have to treat you if you have no foreseeable way to pay them back, since by not paying them you are draining society's resources.
Hospitals cannot (legally) make determinations about who they can treat, whether a law was broken or not. Nor should they be allowed to.
So you're saying the government is allowed to (pre-)determine for me a choice that could affect my living or dying? Do you think they should be able to do this in every case? What if I am going to have surgery where I have a 10% chance that I could die or be severely maimed? Because it's "only a 10% chance" does that mean the government gets to decide for me?
This is the dumbest argument. Those people who die or are severly hurt by seat belts should not have been legally bound to wear them. Perhaps they would've worn them anyway, perhaps not, but at least it would've been their choice and not the government's.
Even better: Imagine flawless powerpoint support in PowerPoint!
Hehe. I meant "hire" in the British sense (as in "rent").
It prolly depends on the state (unless you trespass on federal property).
For my own curiosity, does this include dumpsters? I mean, technically, you could be taken for trespassers if the dumpster is on the property (which it probably is). A friend and I were caught dumpster diving a few years back, and though the cops didn't do anything except get our information (we had no ID on us, and they gave us a hard time about that, but since that's not illegal -- yet -- there was nothing they could do). But they told us that we were trespassing and if we did again they'd arrest us. I'm guessing they were bull-sh***ing us, but I don't really know.
Anyway, I guess my question is, what's the definition of a "curb"? If you hire a dumpster, does that mean the stuff in the dumpster is PD? Or does it belong to the dumpster owner?
The source isn't GPL'd! Who let this one slip through?!?!?!
No, the photo on the Madster website is not revealing in any way. The photo on her blog, however.... yum!!! That's her site, though, not her dad's. I'm saying, "Give me more!"
Also, she's 18 dude -- old enough to do things for herself.
I agree wholeheartedly!
Well, the whole idea of a streaming internet radio station is to distribute music. However, as long as they pay the royalties, the RIAA has no case.
From the article:
I'm sorry, but why would they have to notify the copyright owners? There are thousands of radio stations that do this same exact thing.
Now, if Morpheus planned on not paying appropriate royalties, there might be a case. There might also be a (unjest, nevertheless still legal) case if any of those CDs are copy-protected. But simply making a database should not be illegal.
Hopefully this will be dismissed for the farce it is. Morpheus should countersue the RIAA for filing frivolent lawsuits.
For those of you who think that the Reclaim the PUblic Domain petition isn't strong enough, there's another one that Larry lists on his blog: Reclaim Copyright Law.
SO all of you bitching that the Eldred Act isn't strong enough -- I defy you to sign this other one!
This is precisely the problem, and it's a problem of the MASSES too. I recently had a conversation with a friend and his wife about this, and the wife was completely convinced that creators (companies included) should be paid for "their work". When I explained that most of Disney's feature animations (and much of their other stuff) are taken from stories in the public domain she was still unconvinced. "They" were the ones who "did all the work". Whatever. I then proceded to explain that placing something in the public domain doesn't preclude the "creators" from making money from it. It just means ANYBODY can make money from it, as well as improve on it.
The thing is, both my friend and his wife are staunch capitalists. Yet they (especially the wife) didn't see how the public domain actually promotes capitalism and competition. It's just another example of how screwed up people's viewpoints have become in CORPORATE AMERICA (which is not the same as CAPITALIST AMERICA).
Yeah, I remember seeing this in high school. The guy went schizo or something. Based on a true story, I believe.
Yes, corporations own copyrights (obviously, or else why would Disney have supported the CTEA?), and yes renewing copyrights would be part of the daily operation of a company -- just like it used to be back when everybody still had to register copyrights.
What you're missing, though, is that the act DOES say that the copyright would eventually expire. Essentially there are two dates to worry about: Fifty years after the initial registration, and then the maximum copyright limit (which is currently author's life + 70 years, or 95 years flat for a corporation). If the company pays their renewal fees every year (or couple of years), then they will retain the copyright on their works ONLY UNTIL the copyright will expire "normally".
Only if Congress continues to play it's ugly "we're only extending it for a limited time" game will the perpetual copyright be a problem. But hey, let's face it, that's the problem now.
Yes, this bill is only incrementally better than what most people on /. want, but incrementally better is better than incrementally worse. I applaud Eric et al for coming up with proposed legislation -- nobody else is doing it, and at least they have taken the initiative to do something!
Nah, you could probably see her nose from the beach.
It's the FTC, tool.
Yes, and then the RIAA says, "Post our music above theirs (or worse, don't post theirs at all) or else we won't let you sell our music anymore." That's when iTMS says farewell to the indies....