Yeah, I know, I even tried searching for "ALDI Cola" which is the only store chain in Australia where you can buy the stuff and couldn't find an image:(
CopyRIGHT is the public giving up its RIGHT to copy for the sake of getting more works. No-one asked me if I wanted to give up my RIGHT. No-one ever asks. If it's my RIGHT then shouldn't they ask me if I want to give it up before they take it away?
Your magic, free Pepsi machine is knowingly interfering with the undisputed property rights of Pepsi. Pepsico holds the exclusive rights to make Pepsi. Coca-Cola holds the exclusive rights to make Coke. Except that only you, and maybe a few other misinformed people, think Pepsi have any right over the Pepsi Cola recipe. Or that Coca-Cola have any right over the Coca-Cola recipe. It's funny that you chose this example, because recipes are an example of something that doesn't have copyright protection and a perfect example of what happens when you don't give companies a monopoly over an idea... you get competition.
I, personally, drink Regal Cola. It's made locally (Australia) and costs about 40% less than Coca Cola. It tastes closer to Coca Cola than it does to Pepsi Cola, and I've found it has a crisp taste that I haven't found in other cola varieties.
If it was found that Regal Cola had similar ingredients to Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola, the law would provide no "protection" to any of these players. As such, I have the choice which product I want to buy. I can choose which I prefer because they are essentially the same. This can't be said for music.
And they may be right, so what? I hate that.. it reminds me of people who say "that's broken on Windows too" when you criticize their Mac or a Linux distro. It aint right. That's all that matters - not how bad it is elsewhere. Hold yourself and your society to a gold standard.
A method for automatically interpreting an electronic message, including the steps of (a) receiving the electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine; and (c) classifying the electronic message as at least one of (i) being able to be responded to automatically; and (ii) requiring assistance from a human operator. The method for automatically interpreting an electronic message may also include the step of retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source. That's abstract the patent. If you think that vacation meets even that then you're an idiot. And we haven't even started looking at the claims yet.
The criticism of the shuttle program is extensive and uncontroversial. No-one in the industry, not even NASA, thinks the shuttle is anything but a huge balls up from beginning to end. The most flattering description of the shuttle program you can get from a space systems engineer is "it was a nice design before congress got to it."
So what you're saying is that this is really cheap advertising.
Personally, I think NASA could more easily improve their image by putting a few cameras on the shuttle.. and showing us what the astronauts are actually doing when they're going through the procedures to return to earth, say, instead of showing us shot after shot of the landing strip, 4 hours before the shuttle is even scheduled to enter the atmosphere.
Maybe put together some CG of the shuttle doing what it does when the astronauts press the buttons on the flight deck. Show us that when they're going through the procedures.. instead of the same shot of the earth from the ISS for 40 minutes.
Ya know, actually engage the people on the ground in the process.
When you sell or give away your copyrighted content, you've transferred the license to that person. Uhh.. what are you talking about? The purpose of a 'license' is to permit you to do something which is otherwise unlawful. For example, fishing without a fishing license is unlawful on some lakes. In the usual situation of purchasing music from a retail outlet, you don't receive a license. This is because the copyright owner does not wish to grant you permission to do any of the things that copyright law prohibits you from doing. All rights are reserved, for them.
You no longer have the item available for your own personal use. (You have have distributed it, or you could say that you have distributed it again, but you did not re-distributed it). Yeah, that's not what distribution means.. in the legal sense of copyright.
That doesn't apply to the P2P issue. When you 'lend' it to someone by P2P, you still have the file on your computer. You have not legitimatly distributed your license to someone else. Instead you have chosen to re-distribute it... to allow it to be copied and taken by others while in your posession. As I said, you don't have a license.. and, even if you would, you couldn't distribute you license.. I'm not even terribly sure what you could possibly mean by that.
Copying it and allowing others to take the copies for their own use is 're-distribution'. Transferring your license to someone else without making more copies of it is 'distribution'. Are you defining these terms now? Or are you saying what you think they mean? Cause that's not what they mean.
I don't know who you're used to talking to about these issues, but either they are very ignorant or they just humor you. But now you're talking to someone who actually knows something about copyright law.. so you're probably best to stop talking now unless you want to embarrass yourself further.
especially when there are a ton of legitimate things waiting YEARS for a chance of being lifted into space. Meh, the reason why things, and people, wait years to get a chance to fly has nothing to do with technical capability and everything to do with politics.
That's what being an astronaut is.. suckin' ass for your chance.
Yes, because 'higher quality' is what consumers of commercial music are looking for. When they give up their rights, they give up my rights. No amount of counter-culture can fix that.
Rutan recently said, "Admitting that the shuttle was wrong is an honest thing, but there is not the courage to actually try something we don't know will work. It means that we are absolutely, positively guaranteed to not solve the problem" of the dangers and expense of spaceflight.
The fee goes to the DJ, who then pays the appropriate organization. I assure you this is the case, because I've had friends who have done DJing and when approached by these lowlifes they've just told them to fuck right off. Guess what? They do. They have no ability to enforce their demands.
Heh, see, that's the point. The language of copyright law doesn't say you can't re-distribute.. it says you can't copy. You can give your copy of Jurassic Park to anyone you want. You can even resell it. You just can't make copies. If someone else makes a copy while you're lending it to them then they have infringed copyright law, not you.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the mitochondria DNA is considered part of the human genome, but only by definition.
Yeah, I know, I even tried searching for "ALDI Cola" which is the only store chain in Australia where you can buy the stuff and couldn't find an image :(
Here's some I took with my camera phone:
http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/regalcola1.jpg
http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/regalcola2.jpg
http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/regalcola3.jpg
http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/regalcola4.jpg
and proof that camera phones still suck.
You are completely wrong.
I'd rather my freedom than Hollywood's blockbusters. Thanks.
CopyRIGHT is the public giving up its RIGHT to copy for the sake of getting more works. No-one asked me if I wanted to give up my RIGHT. No-one ever asks. If it's my RIGHT then shouldn't they ask me if I want to give it up before they take it away?
I, personally, drink Regal Cola. It's made locally (Australia) and costs about 40% less than Coca Cola. It tastes closer to Coca Cola than it does to Pepsi Cola, and I've found it has a crisp taste that I haven't found in other cola varieties.
If it was found that Regal Cola had similar ingredients to Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola, the law would provide no "protection" to any of these players. As such, I have the choice which product I want to buy. I can choose which I prefer because they are essentially the same. This can't be said for music.
And they may be right, so what? I hate that.. it reminds me of people who say "that's broken on Windows too" when you criticize their Mac or a Linux distro. It aint right. That's all that matters - not how bad it is elsewhere. Hold yourself and your society to a gold standard.
What the patent covers is responding to customer queries with technical help.
There's no prior art of such.
Claiming that listserv is prior art is like claiming that telephone is prior art to a fax machine.
And you look just as stupid.
"He said he was going somewhere he would need Euros"
Damn you single trade currency!
We're on Slashdot. It's an article about patents. 99% of the people who post a reply have never filed a patent in their life. Yes, they're idiots.
I dunno what you're talking about.
The patent is linked in the summary.. if you want to argue that listserv software invalidates this patent, then you're an idiot.
This is what is wrong with Slashdot.
Gotta be more interesting than watching an empty runway.
Always start with wikipedia..
c e_Shuttle_program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Spa
The criticism of the shuttle program is extensive and uncontroversial. No-one in the industry, not even NASA, thinks the shuttle is anything but a huge balls up from beginning to end. The most flattering description of the shuttle program you can get from a space systems engineer is "it was a nice design before congress got to it."
Uhhh, by "he" I was referring to Burt Rutan.. the guy I quoted.
And as for me, personally, not wanting to educate you on the inadequacy of the shuttle program, I just couldn't be fucked ok?
I don't wanna argue with you about it.
If he needs to tell you then you won't understand. Go read about the failure that is the shuttle program.
They tried to make a vehicle that would be everything to everyone. They got a vehicle that does just that.. poorly.
That's what I'm talking about (what else would I be talking about).
Last shuttle mission, coming down, 3 hours of looking at the runway.. or looking at the guys in the control center looking at the runway.
So what you're saying is that this is really cheap advertising.
Personally, I think NASA could more easily improve their image by putting a few cameras on the shuttle.. and showing us what the astronauts are actually doing when they're going through the procedures to return to earth, say, instead of showing us shot after shot of the landing strip, 4 hours before the shuttle is even scheduled to enter the atmosphere.
Maybe put together some CG of the shuttle doing what it does when the astronauts press the buttons on the flight deck. Show us that when they're going through the procedures.. instead of the same shot of the earth from the ISS for 40 minutes.
Ya know, actually engage the people on the ground in the process.
I don't know who you're used to talking to about these issues, but either they are very ignorant or they just humor you. But now you're talking to someone who actually knows something about copyright law.. so you're probably best to stop talking now unless you want to embarrass yourself further.
That's what being an astronaut is.. suckin' ass for your chance.
Yes, because 'higher quality' is what consumers of commercial music are looking for. When they give up their rights, they give up my rights. No amount of counter-culture can fix that.
Uh huh. Maybe if more people ripped the arms off TSA agents we'd have more sensible air travel security.
Rutan recently said, "Admitting that the shuttle was wrong is an honest thing, but there is not the courage to actually try something we don't know will work. It means that we are absolutely, positively guaranteed to not solve the problem" of the dangers and expense of spaceflight.
The fee goes to the DJ, who then pays the appropriate organization. I assure you this is the case, because I've had friends who have done DJing and when approached by these lowlifes they've just told them to fuck right off. Guess what? They do. They have no ability to enforce their demands.
Heh, see, that's the point. The language of copyright law doesn't say you can't re-distribute.. it says you can't copy. You can give your copy of Jurassic Park to anyone you want. You can even resell it. You just can't make copies. If someone else makes a copy while you're lending it to them then they have infringed copyright law, not you.