We all know what the standard slashdot stance is on forced monopolies like Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office etc, but whats the stance when the monopoly is based on having the best product, as is the case with Photoshop? As the parent said, theres nothing in the market place that cuts it apart from Photoshop, but theres nothing forcing you to buy it apart from the fact that theres no viable alternative.
He was stupid because he released it without permission, he was bad at covering his tracks so he was caught, and he was blamed because he did it. All stemmed from stupidity - his.
The 'bold move' by BSG happened AFTER the first episode aired in the UK, US and Canada - right there you have probably 90% of the market that it was going to hit, and theyd already seen it!
Anyway, I really think decisions like this are best left to those who actually owns the content, not some schmoe who gets his hands on it during the course of a days work and thinks 'I know, Ill release this to drum up some interest. They will thank me later because Im doing them a favour!'.
Your way, the producer doesnt see any return on the pilot, whereas currently the networks purchase the pilot and air it, so the producer gets a return even if the rest of the series tanks. I dont think any producer can afford to take such a risk whereas the networks can.
They dont contradict each other. What it is saying is that IE is implemented using publically available OS API calls only, not secret ones as people have surmised, and that it is PART of the OS in order to provide some DIFFERENT API calls to third party applications.
The two statements bear no relation to each other, other than that they both relate to IE and APIs.
If you don't want a search engine spidering your pictures and news stories, don't put them on the web. If AFP were paper only, Google could not violate their copyright. It saves AFP money to stay offline.
This isnt about the images and content being taken from the AFP website, this is about AFP images and content on OTHER news sites such as the BBC, NYTimes etc appearing on Google News with the attributions stripped.
If you take a look at the AFP website, you will see that their website, while having a little news content, does not revolve around presenting news to the public.
If AFP decides to pay to go online to make money, they should know the rules of the Internet. First rule about search engines like Google: robots.txt. If they don't want Google to spider them, any half-decent Internet expert they hire would be able to keep Google out of their webspace in the time it takes to type
If you look at their robots.txt it contains the following:
Speaking of investments, even if they somehow managed to stay completely ignorant of search engine operation, anyone who wants to sell something online needs to protect it. This is as easy as adding password accounts. Other online news services do just that.
Dealt with above, this is about reuse without attribution, which is NOT covered by any meaning of the term 'fair use'.
Copyright protects the rights of authors so that they can make money. Why should we give them the benefit of governmental protection when it's obvious they don't care about protecting the content themselves enough to use basic measures to do so?
My god, you have a perverted and thoroughly wrong view of copyright and the protections granted to it. The whole point of copyright is that YOU DO NOT REQUIRE other protection, it SHOULD be publically available with no threat of copyrights being stripped just because someone else decided to use your content and you sued to stop them.
By taking this action against Google, they are doing exactly what you want them to do, protect their copyrights. Copyright is granted so that works do not spend eternity in someones private collection never to be seen by the public. It grants the holders protection so that others can see the content.
As it also says on that page, you cant write 1000 lines of code today without falling foul of SOMEONES patents, so that statement is more of a warning rather than anything else.
Microsoft has granted RAND+Royalty Free licenses to any patents they
might own that are required to implement the ECMA 334/335 standards.
So at least our core VM, classes and compilers are safe from any
litigation from *Microsoft*.
Guess what, english terms can have multiple valid meanings and definitions that do not detract from each other.
Piracy as a term for copyright infringement is often taken to be a construct created by the modern music companies, when infact it dates way back to the 18th century, first appearing in print in 1771, and the Oxford English Dictionary has held this definition as its second definition of piracy pretty much since it was first in print.
Bang. My computer is no longer "authorized" to play the music I downloaded. If I'd actually paid for these songs, I'd now have a bunch of useless files, and Apple and the RIAA would have a bunch of my money in return. I'm sure there's probably a pretty easy way to re-authorize my machine, but nowhere did iTunes inform me of how (it simply said "your machine is not authorized to play this song" or some such nonsense), and I was not about to waste my time bothering to find out. I shouldn't have to worry about such things anyway.
Now, I may be hallucinating, but on ALL versions of iTunes I have used (both Mac and Windows), whenever I have upgraded/wiped/reinstalled the computer, and went to play a iTMS purchased file, it said that my system wasnt authorised, and then it asked me if i wanted to authorise the computer. You make it sound like you have to go on a year long quest hiking in the Amazon to authorise a new system, when that just isnt the case.
Its disturbingly strange, i bought an ipod nearly 3 years ago now, and just this last november I moved entirely to the Mac platform. I bought a secondhand G3 B&W PowerMac off of ebay for a few pennies, and then two weeks later I bought a new ibook and then a mac mini. Oh well, my assimilation is complete:) Games didnt even factor in it for me.
i think its more likely that a dodgy phone battery or something like that could cause a dangerous fire, if you drop a cigarette on your clothes, it takes a while to burn a hole - if you didn't notice it before, youve noticed it now because your now in pain. Unless your wearing one of those 80's shell suits, you'l be fine and so will everybody else (80's shell suits are illegal to sell in the uk now because theyre a fire hazard.
Smoking is the second biggest cause of housefires in the UK and the primary cause of fire related deaths at home in the US (Source). Dodgy phone batteries 'or something like that' dont even appear on the list.
A small fire would be very easy to put out anyway, im sure the trolly dollies are trained to use a fire extinguisher. how many times (when smoking used to be allowed on planes) did people used to set fire to things with cigarettes?
That makes it OK then lets just let small fires happen because they can be put out.
i would pay an extra 10% of the price of my ticket to sit in a smoking area because im scared of flying
You are flying in a very small, tight, enclosed metal tube. The entire aircraft would be the 'smoking area'.
I dont think the safety rules are over the top. You are at 37,000 feet, if you have any sort of emergancy at that altitude its going to take you time to get on the ground, and then evacuate the aircraft, so its a case of limit dangers to only those necessary. Why endanger the aircraft needlessly jsut to pander to someones personal addiction, because thats what it is?
Connexion by Boeing airborne Internet in airline service
Its primarily EU airlines that have so far started using Connexion, while the US airlines lag far behind, so its no surprise that it would be in use on Airbus aircraft.
How often do older films get shown in Cinemas? Very very infrequently, usually only as part of a special event or some such, and you can bet that these projectors have an analog in anyway, or theres a analog to digital convertor that sits between the projector and the storage unit enabling you to use analog sources.
A Robot trawling the site and a news aggregator specifically reusing headlines, content and images from the site are two completely different things. Just because AFP doesnt disallow the googlebot from trawling doesnt mean they give up the copyright to the content.
AFP sells this content to other websites and print newspapers, you routinely see AFP stories and images on CNN, BBC news an other high status news sites, so why should Google have the privilege of using those images on their own news aggregator without permission? Oh sorry, because its *GOOOOOGLE* it should be ok, eh?
I dont think so, because the Hurd was under development for quite a few years before Linux became popular. Personally, I think the GNU philosophy works excellently for individual programmers working on their own individual projects (as the gnu toolchain shows) but a lot of the larger projects that Gnu has been involved in have stagnated sooner or later. It took a complete fork to kickstart GCC into version 3, the Hurd has had its core architecture changed multiple times so personally I think that the 'group' is more at fault than lack of interest etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You raise a good point, what will the EU Commission do when MS promotes XP Home/Pro and not this new 'N' version?
Quick question to slashdotters -
:)
We all know what the standard slashdot stance is on forced monopolies like Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office etc, but whats the stance when the monopoly is based on having the best product, as is the case with Photoshop? As the parent said, theres nothing in the market place that cuts it apart from Photoshop, but theres nothing forcing you to buy it apart from the fact that theres no viable alternative.
Discuss. Please
Because all of the parts do not come together to make the whole that is Redhat Enterprise edition.
He was stupid because he released it without permission, he was bad at covering his tracks so he was caught, and he was blamed because he did it. All stemmed from stupidity - his.
The 'bold move' by BSG happened AFTER the first episode aired in the UK, US and Canada - right there you have probably 90% of the market that it was going to hit, and theyd already seen it!
Anyway, I really think decisions like this are best left to those who actually owns the content, not some schmoe who gets his hands on it during the course of a days work and thinks 'I know, Ill release this to drum up some interest. They will thank me later because Im doing them a favour!'.
Your way, the producer doesnt see any return on the pilot, whereas currently the networks purchase the pilot and air it, so the producer gets a return even if the rest of the series tanks. I dont think any producer can afford to take such a risk whereas the networks can.
Is he just really stupid, bad at covering his tracks, or someone they could blame?
Or all three?
They dont contradict each other. What it is saying is that IE is implemented using publically available OS API calls only, not secret ones as people have surmised, and that it is PART of the OS in order to provide some DIFFERENT API calls to third party applications.
The two statements bear no relation to each other, other than that they both relate to IE and APIs.
This isnt about the images and content being taken from the AFP website, this is about AFP images and content on OTHER news sites such as the BBC, NYTimes etc appearing on Google News with the attributions stripped.
If you take a look at the AFP website, you will see that their website, while having a little news content, does not revolve around presenting news to the public.
If you look at their robots.txt it contains the following:
Which I think is more than enough.Dealt with above, this is about reuse without attribution, which is NOT covered by any meaning of the term 'fair use'.
My god, you have a perverted and thoroughly wrong view of copyright and the protections granted to it. The whole point of copyright is that YOU DO NOT REQUIRE other protection, it SHOULD be publically available with no threat of copyrights being stripped just because someone else decided to use your content and you sued to stop them.
By taking this action against Google, they are doing exactly what you want them to do, protect their copyrights. Copyright is granted so that works do not spend eternity in someones private collection never to be seen by the public. It grants the holders protection so that others can see the content.
As it also says on that page, you cant write 1000 lines of code today without falling foul of SOMEONES patents, so that statement is more of a warning rather than anything else.
More info On the patent issue.
Guess what, english terms can have multiple valid meanings and definitions that do not detract from each other.
Piracy as a term for copyright infringement is often taken to be a construct created by the modern music companies, when infact it dates way back to the 18th century, first appearing in print in 1771, and the Oxford English Dictionary has held this definition as its second definition of piracy pretty much since it was first in print.
Only because the gov't says so. Copyright is not inherent!
All property law exists only because the government says so.
Without copyright, we won't need GPL.
Even without copyright, sourcecode doesnt magically become available when you have binaries.
And we're well within our rights to do with whatever we want with our purchased goods.
Go read the terms and conditions of the iTMS, which are binding since you handed over payment details when you signed up to purchase music.
Bang. My computer is no longer "authorized" to play the music I downloaded. If I'd actually paid for these songs, I'd now have a bunch of useless files, and Apple and the RIAA would have a bunch of my money in return. I'm sure there's probably a pretty easy way to re-authorize my machine, but nowhere did iTunes inform me of how (it simply said "your machine is not authorized to play this song" or some such nonsense), and I was not about to waste my time bothering to find out. I shouldn't have to worry about such things anyway.
Now, I may be hallucinating, but on ALL versions of iTunes I have used (both Mac and Windows), whenever I have upgraded/wiped/reinstalled the computer, and went to play a iTMS purchased file, it said that my system wasnt authorised, and then it asked me if i wanted to authorise the computer. You make it sound like you have to go on a year long quest hiking in the Amazon to authorise a new system, when that just isnt the case.
When was the last time you won a football tournament
What countries take part in the World Series?
With the majority of players in the Premier League not being English (or even British), Id have to say that your statement is false (while amusing).
Its disturbingly strange, i bought an ipod nearly 3 years ago now, and just this last november I moved entirely to the Mac platform. I bought a secondhand G3 B&W PowerMac off of ebay for a few pennies, and then two weeks later I bought a new ibook and then a mac mini. Oh well, my assimilation is complete :) Games didnt even factor in it for me.
Yeah, and the first time that door stops people evacuating the aircraft resulting in deaths.....
i think its more likely that a dodgy phone battery or something like that could cause a dangerous fire, if you drop a cigarette on your clothes, it takes a while to burn a hole - if you didn't notice it before, youve noticed it now because your now in pain. Unless your wearing one of those 80's shell suits, you'l be fine and so will everybody else (80's shell suits are illegal to sell in the uk now because theyre a fire hazard.
Smoking is the second biggest cause of housefires in the UK and the primary cause of fire related deaths at home in the US (Source). Dodgy phone batteries 'or something like that' dont even appear on the list.
A small fire would be very easy to put out anyway, im sure the trolly dollies are trained to use a fire extinguisher. how many times (when smoking used to be allowed on planes) did people used to set fire to things with cigarettes?
That makes it OK then lets just let small fires happen because they can be put out.
i would pay an extra 10% of the price of my ticket to sit in a smoking area because im scared of flying
You are flying in a very small, tight, enclosed metal tube. The entire aircraft would be the 'smoking area'.
I dont think the safety rules are over the top. You are at 37,000 feet, if you have any sort of emergancy at that altitude its going to take you time to get on the ground, and then evacuate the aircraft, so its a case of limit dangers to only those necessary. Why endanger the aircraft needlessly jsut to pander to someones personal addiction, because thats what it is?
If you dont believe him, there here ya go:
Connexion by Boeing airborne Internet in airline service
Its primarily EU airlines that have so far started using Connexion, while the US airlines lag far behind, so its no surprise that it would be in use on Airbus aircraft.
How often do older films get shown in Cinemas? Very very infrequently, usually only as part of a special event or some such, and you can bet that these projectors have an analog in anyway, or theres a analog to digital convertor that sits between the projector and the storage unit enabling you to use analog sources.
A Robot trawling the site and a news aggregator specifically reusing headlines, content and images from the site are two completely different things. Just because AFP doesnt disallow the googlebot from trawling doesnt mean they give up the copyright to the content.
AFP sells this content to other websites and print newspapers, you routinely see AFP stories and images on CNN, BBC news an other high status news sites, so why should Google have the privilege of using those images on their own news aggregator without permission? Oh sorry, because its *GOOOOOGLE* it should be ok, eh?
I dont think so, because the Hurd was under development for quite a few years before Linux became popular. Personally, I think the GNU philosophy works excellently for individual programmers working on their own individual projects (as the gnu toolchain shows) but a lot of the larger projects that Gnu has been involved in have stagnated sooner or later. It took a complete fork to kickstart GCC into version 3, the Hurd has had its core architecture changed multiple times so personally I think that the 'group' is more at fault than lack of interest etc.
Oh boy, is this comment going down to -1 or what.