I never said anything about them being evil, only ignorant or arrogant or short-sighted in their quest for "freedom."
Whatever you think about their license or their opinions, one of the reasons GNU won is because they made better products then the proprietary systems, as shown by the number of people who install GNU tools on their proprietary Un*x as well as by stuff like the fuzz tests.
They weren't the only people to want better, extended tools. While Brian Fox was writing bash, David Korn was writing ksh. While RMS was writing GNU Make, BSD people were writing pmake. The only difference between using gmake features and pmake features is that Linux, and with it gmake, is more common.
Also, it would be better to work around that Bobix bug by eliminating the use of that feature in the shell scripts, rather than adopt a more complex tool. Unless, of course, the bug is so horrendous that Bobix is trash, anyway, making those who chose it look foolish (if "Bobix" even exists, for that matter).
Bobix was any Unix. GCC developers have officially given up on compiling with HP/UX's cc, as it's buggy and doesn't support C89. The GCC target-specific installation instructions mention dozens of cases where "HP-UX version 8.0 has a bug in the assembler that prevents compilation of GCC." or "The Solaris 2/bin/sh will often fail to configure libstdc++-v3, boehm-gc or libjava." It's an incredible job tracking all these bugs, much less trying to be bug-compatible with every version of Un*x ever released. GCC developers try, to some extent, to build on every C compiler and shell, but eventually punted on make, requiring GNU make. If you think that Joe Developer, who wrote a program with 300 users and 1 or 2 not running Linux or BSD, should going to worry about those bugs, I think that Joe has better things to do with his time.
This still won't stop the GNU folks from fucking it up, though, because more dependencies ensure GPL-lock-in [...] a very serious issue, where lots of software is becoming very GNU-specific rather than UNIX-specific
Oh yes, the GNU folks are such evil, evil people because they write such good, portable code that other people would rather say "use Bash 3.04" rather then fight with less featureful, POSIX utilities and find out that the utilities that come with Bobix aren't POSIX complaint/have some odd bug, and Bobix users have to install Bash anyway.
Unfortunately, by the time I figured out the right switches for the sht command, I felt better!
RTFM. It's sht [options] [caliber] [number of bullets], where -l is for lead bullets, -number is how you specify the number of the body part you want to shoot (where the default is in the air), -h for high velocity, and -q for auto reload. How much easier could it get?
the studies that show that, even though vowels and other sonorants are the parts of speech we prolong while talking or singing, the semantic content of language is carried primarily in the consonants:
Well, sonorants, like m, n, r, l, and j, are important too. Try:
T t ysf--s hw -- wds y c dstd, v wh y dt wt dw vws -- th pg.
In any case, I think that's shown by the success of Arabic and Hebrew, that don't write vowels at all, and even by English, which frequently doesn't give enough information in its spelling to figure out which of the 15 vowels is used in the word.
You sure made a lot of assumptions there. Why would I be using ASCII for message strings?
That's the worst non-sequitor I've heard in a while. You said:
If you want to treat a byte as a char in one statement and as a bit vector in the next you shouldn't have to beg the computer to let you do exactly what it does on its own. (Study the bit structure of ASCII sometime, and you'll understand.)
and all I did was point out that all studying the bit structure of ASCII will do is help you write code that mangles the non-ASCII that most of the world uses.
It's really an absurd example. Treating anything as something at one point and a bucket of bits someplace else is a sign of too-cute programming, and is going to be a source of bugs the instant you port to a new platform or have to add a new flag or object to the structure. Adding a cast is the least you can do at that point to make it clear.
But hey, no one expects PDP-11 assembler to be portable or modifiable. And there's something to be said for programming in the only language that has killed people accidently (the Therarad incident.)
The point is that the artistic types will tend to cling to their ways...who knows why. But it doesn't seem like, as a group, creative folks tend to enbrace new technology (or in this case a pretty damn old one, like a word processor) I wonder if it's alright to use an electric light Vs. a candle to write?
Did you read the same article I did? I've been using computers since they took my pacifier away. I've got a B.S. in mathematics. And for a lot of the same reasons, I'd rather write on paper then try and write almost anything on a computer. The computer's great for flamewars, but it doesn't inspire concentration.
There are no formatting choices when you write a novel. Well, pretty close to zero, anyway.
I take it you can just write without worrying about stuff like that. Personally, I write as far away from my computer as possible, because formatting decisions are usually the least of my problems on the computer; but the few times I have sat down to type, they've usually become a problem.
I'm sure there's a nice little Unix utility to do it, but it'd probably take me about 10 minutes with man to find it and work out how to use it.
Ooh, ten minutes. Once you've done that - pr's probably your tool - you're done.
In fact, strong typing is stupid. If you want to treat a byte as a char in one statement and as a bit vector in the next you shouldn't have to beg the computer to let you do exactly what it does on its own. (Study the bit structure of ASCII sometime, and you'll understand.)
Great. You've just saved 4 nanoseconds over the standard method at the cost of mangling anything that's not English and making it a pain to port to EBCDIC or Unicode. (And, of course, making what you're doing confusing to the next guy, who doesn't think in the bit values of ASCII.) Wonderful example of 1960's programming - make it fast even if it's not right.
Then why are Brits less well educated now than 30 years ago? In the 1960s, calculus was taught at GCE 'O' level (an examination taken at about age 16). Now, it's not taught at high school at all - only in university.
Which, alone, proves nothing. What percentage of Brits ever took that exam? What else are they being taught? How has that changed?
if you want to master a difficult subject, you'd better learn to use a library.
Bull. There's more then enough stuff on the web about difficult subjects. If you want to learn how to build a compiler, there's books on the web to tell you how to do that. If you want to learn a new language, there's sites on how to do that, and more people to try it out on the net then in your library. If you want to learn calculus, there's stuff on the web to teach that, and they won't demand you return it after two weeks. The issue is the time and effort you put into it, and the library can't magically give you that.
While I'm sure the LOC system works fine for the Library of Congress, it does not seem to be widely applicable enough to replace the Dewey Decimal Sysem around the world.
You mean the system that breaks down literature by:
810 American Literature 820 English Literature 830 Germanic Literature 840 French Literature (+ Romance languages) 850 Italian Literature (+ Romanian) 860 Spanish Literature (+ Portuguese) 870 Latin Literature 880 Greek Literature 890 Non-European Literature (+ Slavic and Celtic) ?
It also breaks languages down in a similar fashion.
No doubt. The DDC is such a pain in the ass when you're used to LOC.
I always found the LOC system infuriating. It mixes the languages with the literature, which is a pain, and then goes on to seperate out military history and naval history.
I was shocked to find major research universities using DDC
Oklahoma State University (over two million volumes) is organized by DDC.
True, you can learn about anything at the click of a button. But how accurate is that information? It may take you hours to find some decently reliable information. Atleast if it comes from a printed encyclopedia I'd give it a little more credit than if you went to Google and and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky." It's very aptly named.
A printed encyclopedia is great if you want a shallow overview of a subject. But if you want a dictionary of Yiddish, or a transliteration guide, don't bother searching at the North Las Vegas library, or (heaven help you) the Alva library. If you want a intro to an arbitrary programming language, search the net. If you want Victorian potboilers, you'll find more of them at Project Gutenberg then even a midsize university library, in a format far more portable then microfilm and searchable to boot.
What does Goatse.cx actually teach you about having sex with goats?
Honestly, if you're interested in having sex with goats, you can search a university and find a few articles from doctors and psychologists, or you can search the net and find FAQ's from people who have actual experiance in the matter, complete with pictures. (Hey, you chose the subject.)
it shouldn't take you hours to find what you're looking for at the library.
They are more complementary then opposed. There's a lot of scholarly things I'd go digging around my library first. But when looking up the somewhat obscure actress Dana Hill, I can either dig through big indexes to find a few references to articles (in magazines that few libraries archive) and a out of date filmography, or I can hit www.imdb.com and find a complete filmography, and then search around to find a site with a dozen of those articles online.
I offer, for your royalty-free consideration, the following scheme for avoiding paying royalties to people who apparently never learned how to think. Instead of "en-us", use "english-usa", instead of "de", use "deutch" (sp?), and so on.
Great. Let's see how well the computer deals with having "german", "deutsch", "de" (it's not just going to disappear) and a bunch of spellings like "deutch" mean the same thing. Or (fun of fun) "interlingua", which has been used for at least three completely different languages.
I am getting really sick of these copanies doing scumbag things like this... their fees that THEY are charged are a part of doing business.
It's capitalism; they charge more then what it cost them and pocket the difference. Whether they directly put the $1.50 tax on the bill or hide it in one big cost, you're going to end up paying it.
if the dealer is going to let a $20,000.00 deal fall through over some stupid $150.00 fee they will shut up.
You'll pay the fee one way or another. If the dealer's willing to let the $150 fee pass, they probably wouldn't have dropped the price another $150 if you had pushed it.
Which is why ISO also publishes three letter codes. We may have alternatives to ISO for languages codes, but we also have alternatives to ASCII for a character set (basis); but those who use EBCDIC get to curse the incompatibilities daily.
two letter codes are too limiting.
Which is why ISO also offers three letter codes, which are used in cases where there's no two letter code. Check out KDE-i18n, where they use ven for Venda.
SIL has organized a very thorough set of three letter codes (usable according to their terms) for every language as part of the Ethnologue project, including artificial languages and sign languages.
ISO's codes were designed for bibliographic systems. SIL's were designed for linguistic. Furthermore, the ISO code system is battle-tested in computers, and details - like the distinction between Nynorsk and Bokmal Norwegian, and not between other pairs of dialects with similar lingustic distance but without the legal and social distance - have been pounded out.
Just ask the leader of each country what they'd like for us to use for their country
Good luck getting a hold of most of them, and better be prepared to keep updating it. Also, country names have a sensitivity that technical things don't. How about Chenchya, Eastern Timor and Palestine? How about ROM for Romania? (It was once a three letter ISO code, but Romania had it changed to ROU.) I rather let ISO and its UN connections take the heat for those decisions.
C won't be dieing anytime soon because once a language hits critical mass it's huge legacy base keeps it going.
And that somehow doesn't apply to Fortran?
But to be convincing you're going to have to come up with more than one example.
One example was all that given that schools were dropping Fortran. A complete survey of schools and the languages they teach might be interesting, but we don't have that.
Also, it seems that to secure their position they had to force Fortran 90 to be a requirement.
I don't think so. I've met many engineers, and it seems that Fortran is still popular there.
Why don't you enlighten yourself
Why don't you can the attitude?
compare the history of Cobol to Fortran.
Cobol dies with the huge computers it was used on. Fortran, OTOH, managed to grab a large audience of scientists and engineers, who still write new code in Fortran. It isn't getting replaced by C, which is a less friendly language for non-programmers; it isn't getting replaced by Java, which isn't good speed-wise; there's some replacement by C++, but C++ is still a programmers language.
But Linus Torvalds seems to have very good points.
After reading many of Linus Torvalds' posts, I think it's useful to remember where he's coming from. He's spent ten years writing a kernel, with some of the best programmers, where every line of code has been rewritten several times. Yes, in that environment, garbage collection won't a huge win. But you don't always have forever to work on one project; you don't always have a team of crack programmers on the job; and a lot of times, efficency is not of primary importance.
When I was in undergrad about ten years ago they had stopped teaching fortran and had switched to C.
And now they've stopped teaching C and started teaching Java. Does that mean C is dead? Also, at Oklahoma State, Fortran 77 is still offered as an easy credit in the CS department, and Fortran 90 (and no other computer language) is a requirement for any engineer. It's not like Fortran has disappeared completely.
Riddle me this: Under the current system, if an actor plays a role in a public domain work, and that work gets copyrighted [and later] provides a similar interpretation [for someone else,] have they committed copyright infringement?
Riddle me this: under your system, where the writer who turn the play into the movie script owns the copyright on script, and the director who directed the film owns copyright on his direction (including that of the actor), what changes? His similar interpretation is still arguably a derivative work of the writer and director's work.
The reason Sun pays up is that Solaris actually does contain SCO code.
Then why on Earth wouldn't Sun have the same irrevocable license that IBM had? Considering the diversity of IBM products and the fact that Sun only makes Unix boxes, I would be very surprised that they wouldn't grab such an offer when it was first made.
I want the copyright laws changed back to the way they were before the 100 year lifetimes and worst of all, corporations being able to own the copyright to a creative work
I think this is a non-sequitor when talking about file sharing. IIRC, Metallica is one of the few bands to have control over their own copyrights, but nobody respected that when they started complaining about file sharing. As for the length of copyrights, if it were still 75 years or even 50 years (or life+50 or even life+25), it still wouldn't matter for the vast majority of file sharing. How many of the people downloading movies are downloading stuff from before 1950? How many of the songs people download are from before 1950?
As for corporations being able to own copyright, who else should own copyright on a movie that the corp put 50 million into and had one person write the script, two more make changes, a director to film it and another person to do the final editing?
Pairs of consonants are called err..consonant pairs.
Pairs of letters that make one sound, like th and sh are digraphs. Sch (an occasional spelling of the sh sound in English, and frequently in German) is a trigraph.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said anything about them being evil, only ignorant or arrogant or short-sighted in their quest for "freedom."
/bin/sh will often fail to configure libstdc++-v3, boehm-gc or libjava." It's an incredible job tracking all these bugs, much less trying to be bug-compatible with every version of Un*x ever released. GCC developers try, to some extent, to build on every C compiler and shell, but eventually punted on make, requiring GNU make. If you think that Joe Developer, who wrote a program with 300 users and 1 or 2 not running Linux or BSD, should going to worry about those bugs, I think that Joe has better things to do with his time.
Whatever you think about their license or their opinions, one of the reasons GNU won is because they made better products then the proprietary systems, as shown by the number of people who install GNU tools on their proprietary Un*x as well as by stuff like the fuzz tests.
They weren't the only people to want better, extended tools. While Brian Fox was writing bash, David Korn was writing ksh. While RMS was writing GNU Make, BSD people were writing pmake. The only difference between using gmake features and pmake features is that Linux, and with it gmake, is more common.
Also, it would be better to work around that Bobix bug by eliminating the use of that feature in the shell scripts, rather than adopt a more complex tool. Unless, of course, the bug is so horrendous that Bobix is trash, anyway, making those who chose it look foolish (if "Bobix" even exists, for that matter).
Bobix was any Unix. GCC developers have officially given up on compiling with HP/UX's cc, as it's buggy and doesn't support C89. The GCC target-specific installation instructions mention dozens of cases where "HP-UX version 8.0 has a bug in the assembler that prevents compilation of GCC." or "The Solaris 2
This still won't stop the GNU folks from fucking it up, though, because more dependencies ensure GPL-lock-in [...] a very serious issue, where lots of software is becoming very GNU-specific rather than UNIX-specific
Oh yes, the GNU folks are such evil, evil people because they write such good, portable code that other people would rather say "use Bash 3.04" rather then fight with less featureful, POSIX utilities and find out that the utilities that come with Bobix aren't POSIX complaint/have some odd bug, and Bobix users have to install Bash anyway.
An infinite non-repeating number need not include every possible combination.
But pi probably does include every possible combination. It's believed to be random at that level.
Unfortunately, by the time I figured out the right switches for the sht command, I felt better!
RTFM. It's sht [options] [caliber] [number of bullets], where -l is for lead bullets, -number is how you specify the number of the body part you want to shoot (where the default is in the air), -h for high velocity, and -q for auto reload. How much easier could it get?
Seriously man, is it really necessary to spread such bullshit urban myths when 2 seconds at Snopes shows that it is fake?
Why not? He didn't present it as truth, and it's a cool story, true or not.
the studies that show that, even though vowels and other sonorants are the parts of speech we prolong while talking or singing, the semantic content of language is carried primarily in the consonants:
Well, sonorants, like m, n, r, l, and j, are important too. Try:
T t ysf--s hw -- wds y c dstd, v wh y dt wt dw vws -- th pg.
In any case, I think that's shown by the success of Arabic and Hebrew, that don't write vowels at all, and even by English, which frequently doesn't give enough information in its spelling to figure out which of the 15 vowels is used in the word.
You sure made a lot of assumptions there. Why would I be using ASCII for message strings?
That's the worst non-sequitor I've heard in a while. You said:
If you want to treat a byte as a char in one statement and as a bit vector in the next you shouldn't have to beg the computer to let you do exactly what it does on its own. (Study the bit structure of ASCII sometime, and you'll understand.)
and all I did was point out that all studying the bit structure of ASCII will do is help you write code that mangles the non-ASCII that most of the world uses.
It's really an absurd example. Treating anything as something at one point and a bucket of bits someplace else is a sign of too-cute programming, and is going to be a source of bugs the instant you port to a new platform or have to add a new flag or object to the structure. Adding a cast is the least you can do at that point to make it clear.
But hey, no one expects PDP-11 assembler to be portable or modifiable. And there's something to be said for programming in the only language that has killed people accidently (the Therarad incident.)
The point is that the artistic types will tend to cling to their ways...who knows why. But it doesn't seem like, as a group, creative folks tend to enbrace new technology (or in this case a pretty damn old one, like a word processor) I wonder if it's alright to use an electric light Vs. a candle to write?
Did you read the same article I did? I've been using computers since they took my pacifier away. I've got a B.S. in mathematics. And for a lot of the same reasons, I'd rather write on paper then try and write almost anything on a computer. The computer's great for flamewars, but it doesn't inspire concentration.
There are no formatting choices when you write a novel. Well, pretty close to zero, anyway.
I take it you can just write without worrying about stuff like that. Personally, I write as far away from my computer as possible, because formatting decisions are usually the least of my problems on the computer; but the few times I have sat down to type, they've usually become a problem.
I'm sure there's a nice little Unix utility to do it, but it'd probably take me about 10 minutes with man to find it and work out how to use it.
Ooh, ten minutes. Once you've done that - pr's probably your tool - you're done.
In fact, strong typing is stupid. If you want to treat a byte as a char in one statement and as a bit vector in the next you shouldn't have to beg the computer to let you do exactly what it does on its own. (Study the bit structure of ASCII sometime, and you'll understand.)
Great. You've just saved 4 nanoseconds over the standard method at the cost of mangling anything that's not English and making it a pain to port to EBCDIC or Unicode. (And, of course, making what you're doing confusing to the next guy, who doesn't think in the bit values of ASCII.) Wonderful example of 1960's programming - make it fast even if it's not right.
Then why are Brits less well educated now than 30 years ago? In the 1960s, calculus was taught at GCE 'O' level (an examination taken at about age 16). Now, it's not taught at high school at all - only in university.
Which, alone, proves nothing. What percentage of Brits ever took that exam? What else are they being taught? How has that changed?
if you want to master a difficult subject, you'd better learn to use a library.
Bull. There's more then enough stuff on the web about difficult subjects. If you want to learn how to build a compiler, there's books on the web to tell you how to do that. If you want to learn a new language, there's sites on how to do that, and more people to try it out on the net then in your library. If you want to learn calculus, there's stuff on the web to teach that, and they won't demand you return it after two weeks. The issue is the time and effort you put into it, and the library can't magically give you that.
While I'm sure the LOC system works fine for the Library of Congress, it does not seem to be widely applicable enough to replace the Dewey Decimal Sysem around the world.
You mean the system that breaks down literature by:
810 American Literature
820 English Literature
830 Germanic Literature
840 French Literature (+ Romance languages)
850 Italian Literature (+ Romanian)
860 Spanish Literature (+ Portuguese)
870 Latin Literature
880 Greek Literature
890 Non-European Literature (+ Slavic and Celtic)
?
It also breaks languages down in a similar fashion.
No doubt. The DDC is such a pain in the ass when you're used to LOC.
I always found the LOC system infuriating. It mixes the languages with the literature, which is a pain, and then goes on to seperate out military history and naval history.
I was shocked to find major research universities using DDC
Oklahoma State University (over two million volumes) is organized by DDC.
True, you can learn about anything at the click of a button. But how accurate is that information? It may take you hours to find some decently reliable information. Atleast if it comes from a printed encyclopedia I'd give it a little more credit than if you went to Google and and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky." It's very aptly named.
A printed encyclopedia is great if you want a shallow overview of a subject. But if you want a dictionary of Yiddish, or a transliteration guide, don't bother searching at the North Las Vegas library, or (heaven help you) the Alva library. If you want a intro to an arbitrary programming language, search the net. If you want Victorian potboilers, you'll find more of them at Project Gutenberg then even a midsize university library,
in a format far more portable then microfilm and searchable to boot.
What does Goatse.cx actually teach you about having sex with goats?
Honestly, if you're interested in having sex with goats, you can search a university and find a few articles from doctors and psychologists, or you can search the net and find FAQ's from people who have actual experiance in the matter, complete with pictures. (Hey, you chose the subject.)
it shouldn't take you hours to find what you're looking for at the library.
They are more complementary then opposed. There's a lot of scholarly things I'd go digging around my library first. But when looking up the somewhat obscure actress Dana Hill, I can either dig through big indexes to find a few references to articles (in magazines that few libraries archive) and a out of date filmography, or I can hit www.imdb.com and find a complete filmography, and then search around to find a site with a dozen of those articles online.
I offer, for your royalty-free consideration, the following scheme for avoiding paying royalties to people who apparently never learned how to think. Instead of "en-us", use "english-usa", instead of "de", use "deutch" (sp?), and so on.
Great. Let's see how well the computer deals with having "german", "deutsch", "de" (it's not just going to disappear) and a bunch of spellings like "deutch" mean the same thing. Or (fun of fun) "interlingua", which has been used for at least three completely different languages.
I am getting really sick of these copanies doing scumbag things like this... their fees that THEY are charged are a part of doing business.
It's capitalism; they charge more then what it cost them and pocket the difference. Whether they directly put the $1.50 tax on the bill or hide it in one big cost, you're going to end up paying it.
if the dealer is going to let a $20,000.00 deal fall through over some stupid $150.00 fee they will shut up.
You'll pay the fee one way or another. If the dealer's willing to let the $150 fee pass, they probably wouldn't have dropped the price another $150 if you had pushed it.
We don't need ISO for language codes.
Which is why ISO also publishes three letter codes. We may have alternatives to ISO for languages codes, but we also have alternatives to ASCII for a character set (basis); but those who use EBCDIC get to curse the incompatibilities daily.
two letter codes are too limiting.
Which is why ISO also offers three letter codes, which are used in cases where there's no two letter code. Check out KDE-i18n, where they use ven for Venda.
SIL has organized a very thorough set of three letter codes (usable according to their terms) for every language as part of the Ethnologue project, including artificial languages and sign languages.
ISO's codes were designed for bibliographic systems. SIL's were designed for linguistic. Furthermore, the ISO code system is battle-tested in computers, and details - like the distinction between Nynorsk and Bokmal Norwegian, and not between other pairs of dialects with similar lingustic distance but without the legal and social distance - have been pounded out.
Just ask the leader of each country what they'd like for us to use for their country
Good luck getting a hold of most of them, and better be prepared to keep updating it. Also, country names have a sensitivity that technical things don't. How about Chenchya, Eastern Timor and Palestine? How about ROM for Romania? (It was once a three letter ISO code, but Romania had it changed to ROU.) I rather let ISO and its UN connections take the heat for those decisions.
C won't be dieing anytime soon because once a language hits critical mass it's huge legacy base keeps it going.
And that somehow doesn't apply to Fortran?
But to be convincing you're going to have to come up with more than one example.
One example was all that given that schools were dropping Fortran. A complete survey of schools and the languages they teach might be interesting, but we don't have that.
Also, it seems that to secure their position they had to force Fortran 90 to be a requirement.
I don't think so. I've met many engineers, and it seems that Fortran is still popular there.
Why don't you enlighten yourself
Why don't you can the attitude?
compare the history of Cobol to Fortran.
Cobol dies with the huge computers it was used on. Fortran, OTOH, managed to grab a large audience of scientists and engineers, who still write new code in Fortran. It isn't getting replaced by C, which is a less friendly language for non-programmers; it isn't getting replaced by Java, which isn't good speed-wise; there's some replacement by C++, but C++ is still a programmers language.
But Linus Torvalds seems to have very good points.
After reading many of Linus Torvalds' posts, I think it's useful to remember where he's coming from. He's spent ten years writing a kernel, with some of the best programmers, where every line of code has been rewritten several times. Yes, in that environment, garbage collection won't a huge win. But you don't always have forever to work on one project; you don't always have a team of crack programmers on the job; and a lot of times, efficency is not of primary importance.
When I was in undergrad about ten years ago they had stopped teaching fortran and had switched to C.
And now they've stopped teaching C and started teaching Java. Does that mean C is dead? Also, at Oklahoma State, Fortran 77 is still offered as an easy credit in the CS department, and Fortran 90 (and no other computer language) is a requirement for any engineer. It's not like Fortran has disappeared completely.
Riddle me this: Under the current system, if an actor plays a role in a public domain work, and that work gets copyrighted [and later] provides a similar interpretation [for someone else,] have they committed copyright infringement?
Riddle me this: under your system, where the writer who turn the play into the movie script owns the copyright on script, and the director who directed the film owns copyright on his direction (including that of the actor), what changes? His similar interpretation is still arguably a derivative work of the writer and director's work.
The trouble is that the News has stopped being about the News and has instead become about pandering to the lowest common denominator's interests
Like just recently when the US papers published all those articles about a non-existant war in Cuba and got the US into a war with Spain.
The reason Sun pays up is that Solaris actually does contain SCO code.
Then why on Earth wouldn't Sun have the same irrevocable license that IBM had? Considering the diversity of IBM products and the fact that Sun only makes Unix boxes, I would be very surprised that they wouldn't grab such an offer when it was first made.
I want the copyright laws changed back to the way they were before the 100 year lifetimes and worst of all, corporations being able to own the copyright to a creative work
I think this is a non-sequitor when talking about file sharing. IIRC, Metallica is one of the few bands to have control over their own copyrights, but nobody respected that when they started complaining about file sharing. As for the length of copyrights, if it were still 75 years or even 50 years (or life+50 or even life+25), it still wouldn't matter for the vast majority of file sharing. How many of the people downloading movies are downloading stuff from before 1950? How many of the songs people download are from before 1950?
As for corporations being able to own copyright, who else should own copyright on a movie that the corp put 50 million into and had one person write the script, two more make changes, a director to film it and another person to do the final editing?
Pairs of consonants are called err..consonant pairs.
Pairs of letters that make one sound, like th and sh are digraphs. Sch (an occasional spelling of the sh sound in English, and frequently in German) is a trigraph.