Heh, I used a Mac the other day. Girl who owns it has owned it for a year. She works for a publishing company and is around Mac users all day (thus the reason she bought it). She accidently removed Safari from the dock 6 months ago and hasn't been on the Internet since (cause she can't find the icon) and she struggled with iTunes for an hour before giving up and asking me if I could figure out how to get it to import a CD. I only managed to do it because I figured it needed to get track names from the internet before it would import, so I fixed her internet problem first, then importing the CD "just works". And that's a Mac in a nutshell. Everything "just works", until it doesn't, and then you have to go through a lot of pain to get it to work again.
Re:There are *some* e-ink products around...
on
Self-Recycling Paper
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I've seen that. It's neat, and the display may be a little easier on the eyes (the main reason people print things out to read them) but so long as the paper is stuck between a hunk of plastic you might as well be reading off a PDA.
I print stuff, read it, shred it. Why? Cause I like reading paper. The world does not revolve around you and your personal likes and, unfortunately, it doesn't revolve around mine either.
That's great that you abuse the copyright system like that, but allowing you to censor who can and can not use your works is not the goal of copyright. It's not why we spend millions of taxpayer's dollars to keep this broken system alive. The sole, and only, reason why copyright exists is to give the creators of artistic works the financial motivation to create their works.
copyright should not apply to personal use, period. Can we have a law that has some relationship to its enforcability please? Here's a litle experiment for ya:
Go see your mother (you should anyway), have a look through her CD/DVD/sewing pattern collection (which she has depends on age of your mother), pick one you like and ask "can I have a copy of this?" I absolutely guarentee she will say "yes." If she doesn't, it's probably because you never visit her.
Now I ask you, if a law exists that everyone's Mom is willing to break, what the hell kind of society are we living in?
I'd argue that its too long, but yes, I agree with you. Although, this is England we're talking about, the place where lordships and royal families are seen as standard fair.
If you can't make money from it then it shouldn't be under copyright. That's the purpose of copyright, to give people a monetary incentive to create new works.
I have to think that if someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it.Yeah, and that's the problem with copyright law, people think it exists to "reward artists" or something.
Making copyright owners apply for renewal every 10 years, and pay a fee at that time is one of the better ideas for copyright reform. Not only will it make people actually think about whether or not it is worth keeping something out of the public domain, but it will also make it a lot easier to keep a registar of copyright works.
Is this just a case of really poor journalism or is there some provision of UK copyright law that foreits the life of the author in the duration of copyright when they transfer the ownership of the work or something? Cause I'm looking at the UK copyright act here and it says life + 50 years, and apparently in '97 there was an EU-wide ammendment that made that life + 70 years. I thought this recent news story was about people complaining that they can't have life + 95 years and when their kids grow up they'll ask for life + 125 years, and so on. As for the people who "make their living" from collecting royalties on songs their dear old dad sang back in the 50's, cry me a freakin' river.
Then everyone stops playing and someone suggests you put on an "adult" DVD and 99% of the time you never see those friends again and the other 1% of the time they start stalking your wife and keep calling you at work. Is that what you want? Well, is it?
It's really simple, if the TOS say you can sell content out-of-game, then there is no problems. If the TOS say you can't sell content out-of-game then you are a cheating lowlife and should be banned from the game, if not dragged out into the street, forced onto your knees and shot in the mouth.
The TOS == The rulebook. If you don't wanna play by the rules, don't play.
do not fuck with gamers in Japan. They make the Koreans look like pussycats.
Four friends are playing a game of Monopoly. One guest turns to the other guest and offers to sell Park Place for $10 real dollars. You're the host, what would you do? That's right, tell the cheating bastard to go home.
I'd really like to add a new clause to the GPL (the LGPL already has a clause similar to this)..
If you refuse to abide by any of the Sections above, you are implicitly permitting modification of the work for any use and reverse engineering for the creation and debugging of such modifications.
If that was added to the linux kernel's license, I think that would sort out NVIDIA and ATI. They would no longer be able to distribute their stuff (which is legally dubious already) without providing us with the right to reverse engineer their work and redistribute it (which in some locales is a right we already have). We need to crush these people.
Yes..... and companies that write software for home users will need to run VMs that contain the home version of the operating system for testing purposes. Therefore the home user will also be able to do the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Shutins should get some form of tax reduction though, surely.
Heh, I used a Mac the other day. Girl who owns it has owned it for a year. She works for a publishing company and is around Mac users all day (thus the reason she bought it). She accidently removed Safari from the dock 6 months ago and hasn't been on the Internet since (cause she can't find the icon) and she struggled with iTunes for an hour before giving up and asking me if I could figure out how to get it to import a CD. I only managed to do it because I figured it needed to get track names from the internet before it would import, so I fixed her internet problem first, then importing the CD "just works". And that's a Mac in a nutshell. Everything "just works", until it doesn't, and then you have to go through a lot of pain to get it to work again.
Second Life, just like LambdaMOO, is all about netsex.
What a zimulating comment.
Yeah, I've seen that. It's neat, and the display may be a little easier on the eyes (the main reason people print things out to read them) but so long as the paper is stuck between a hunk of plastic you might as well be reading off a PDA.
The Reader can also play mp3 files.
There's the canary in the mine. What idiots.
Yes, because by "ruin" they ment something other than fiscal. BTW - if you continue to stalk me, I will report you to your federal police.
Boy am I sick of vapourware press releases on e-paper, e-ink, whatever else they wanna call it.
They been talking about this for decades now.
Put the product in the stores or shut the hell up already.
I print stuff, read it, shred it. Why? Cause I like reading paper. The world does not revolve around you and your personal likes and, unfortunately, it doesn't revolve around mine either.
Yeah, you'd still have a limit, and no, life + 95 years is not acceptable.
My fridge smells of stale milk, but that's not what it is for.
That's great that you abuse the copyright system like that, but allowing you to censor who can and can not use your works is not the goal of copyright. It's not why we spend millions of taxpayer's dollars to keep this broken system alive. The sole, and only, reason why copyright exists is to give the creators of artistic works the financial motivation to create their works.
copyright should not apply to personal use, period. Can we have a law that has some relationship to its enforcability please? Here's a litle experiment for ya:
Go see your mother (you should anyway), have a look through her CD/DVD/sewing pattern collection (which she has depends on age of your mother), pick one you like and ask "can I have a copy of this?" I absolutely guarentee she will say "yes." If she doesn't, it's probably because you never visit her.
Now I ask you, if a law exists that everyone's Mom is willing to break, what the hell kind of society are we living in?
I'd argue that its too long, but yes, I agree with you. Although, this is England we're talking about, the place where lordships and royal families are seen as standard fair.
The singing nobility?
*shudder*
If you can't make money from it then it shouldn't be under copyright. That's the purpose of copyright, to give people a monetary incentive to create new works.
I have to think that if someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it.Yeah, and that's the problem with copyright law, people think it exists to "reward artists" or something.
Making copyright owners apply for renewal every 10 years, and pay a fee at that time is one of the better ideas for copyright reform. Not only will it make people actually think about whether or not it is worth keeping something out of the public domain, but it will also make it a lot easier to keep a registar of copyright works.
Is this just a case of really poor journalism or is there some provision of UK copyright law that foreits the life of the author in the duration of copyright when they transfer the ownership of the work or something? Cause I'm looking at the UK copyright act here and it says life + 50 years, and apparently in '97 there was an EU-wide ammendment that made that life + 70 years. I thought this recent news story was about people complaining that they can't have life + 95 years and when their kids grow up they'll ask for life + 125 years, and so on. As for the people who "make their living" from collecting royalties on songs their dear old dad sang back in the 50's, cry me a freakin' river.
Then everyone stops playing and someone suggests you put on an "adult" DVD and 99% of the time you never see those friends again and the other 1% of the time they start stalking your wife and keep calling you at work. Is that what you want? Well, is it?
It's really simple, if the TOS say you can sell content out-of-game, then there is no problems. If the TOS say you can't sell content out-of-game then you are a cheating lowlife and should be banned from the game, if not dragged out into the street, forced onto your knees and shot in the mouth.
The TOS == The rulebook. If you don't wanna play by the rules, don't play.
do not fuck with gamers in Japan. They make the Koreans look like pussycats.
Four friends are playing a game of Monopoly. One guest turns to the other guest and offers to sell Park Place for $10 real dollars. You're the host, what would you do? That's right, tell the cheating bastard to go home.
Satan doesn't license the souls of Microsoft's employees, he owns them.
as black as the old one?
I'd really like to add a new clause to the GPL (the LGPL already has a clause similar to this)..
If you refuse to abide by any of the Sections above, you are implicitly permitting modification of the work for any use and reverse engineering for the creation and debugging of such modifications.
If that was added to the linux kernel's license, I think that would sort out NVIDIA and ATI. They would no longer be able to distribute their stuff (which is legally dubious already) without providing us with the right to reverse engineer their work and redistribute it (which in some locales is a right we already have). We need to crush these people.
it will be much harder to pirate than Win XPNo, it won't. The protection is already cracked and anything else they add will also be cracked.
Yes..... and companies that write software for home users will need to run VMs that contain the home version of the operating system for testing purposes. Therefore the home user will also be able to do the same thing.