The term "fair use" is often misapplied on slashdot. Fair use applies to quotations of works for certain purposes.
The rights that the DMCA takes away are different. The DMCA enshrines into law any control mechanism placed into a digital work. That control mechanism might limit playback in different places around the world. It might limit the number of times a work can be viewed. It might limit viewings to only one machine. If an author of a book requested that a person had to stand on his head while reading that author's intellectual 'property,' (legally purchesed at a book store) he would be laughed at. Moreover the author would have no legal means to enforce the request. On the other hand, if that author creates some equivalent digital requirement (protection) for his work, the DMCA is there to enforce it.
The DMCA was a massive switch in legal viewpoint. Pre-DMCA, an author had limited rights over his work. Mainly he controlled when and who could copy it. Post-DMCA, the term 'intellectual property' has been taken literally, and digital copyright holders are treated as owners of their information--whether or not they have sold you a copy. This is a massive sea-change, and one that is not at all beneficial to society.
Are you kidding--those guys aren't real Linux fanatics. Real Linux fanatics look through Linus' trash! And I can tell Linus understands me, because the restraining order is only set at 50 feet.
Good points except for the last. A few numbers from 000 to 999 jump out at human minds for whatever reason. (And most people would have different lists.) 123 is the most easy to pick out because we all saw that sequence so often and so early while learning to count. 321 is the opposite, and therefore stands out. 666 will stand out to people of certain religious persuasions, and so on. All in all, the chances of getting a--let's call it--"humanly significant" number is not unity.
Therefore estimating the number of "humanly significant" numbers is the problem. It's useful, as we've seen, because it will allow us to tell random statistics from human picked out numbers: for example, 321 Studios vs. 321 studios.
Off the top of my head, here are the numbers that might really stand out to me: 000,111,...,666,...999,123,321,314(seen pi too often),271(e), and probably the first few primes (002,003,005,007).
That's about 20 numbers off the top of my head. Even if we imagine 50 numbers as the upper limit for "humanly significant" numbers between 000 and 999, then that is still only a 3-5% chance of getting one of those numbers in a single trial. That, of course, doesn't mean much on its own, but in combination with other known probabilities (they multiply!), it can be used to make judgements.
Don't throw good money after bad. Your money will not save Mandrake. Instead, it will wind up in a few lucky creditors' (and their lawyers') pockets after bankruptcy proceedings.
If you have some money that you want to donate to a good cause, pick one where it will do some good. I don't care whether it's the Salvation Army or the EFF, but be effective with your donations. Let the market take care of the less effective corporations--that's what it does.
Goddamn, but that is just dumb. Your first point is completely wrong, and your second point shows that you didn't even understand the topic.
Juries get to read large chunks of the law all of the time. They usually receive an interpretation of the statute from the judge as well. The two are not exclusive. If you ever sit on a criminal jury, you may find yourself making decisions as to which statute best fits the crime--all from the statutes as they are written.
Your second point claiming that "the jury is only allowed to decide the facts of the case within the law as it is written," is true (whatever the libertarians have to say about it) but beside the point. You're way off in left field with it. There is no evidence whatsoever that the jury is trying to decide whether or not the law is just--rather they want the text of it to see whether or not the DMCA applies in this case. That is a common request and rarely turned down.
In a few years after you graduate high school you will be called for jury duty (god help us) and find out what it is really like.
h-bar/2 is used when you are using expectation values of the wave equation to calculate the delta terms. Bohm, amoung others, uses h-bar. There is no set way to write it, because the expectation values aren't always used. If you are going to use the equation, you simply need to know what you are doing with it. I could care less what the chemists call cannonical.
divided by 4*pi (not 2*pi, as stated in previous post)
No, I'm right. But, so are you, interestingly enough. Anything within about a factor of 10 of h-bar is allowable because of the different ways of calculating those values for a wave-packet.
Therefore, the slashdot editors are being careful about not determining the time too precisely lest Max Planck and the German Physical Society accidently obtain an energy with an order of magnitude anywhere between a butterfly's wings and a supernova.
Is installing a program on more than one computer stealing? Is installing bitkeeper and contributing to cvs without paying $5000 stealing? Is installing a program on a multi-processor box without paying for the multi-processor version stealing? Is using frontpage to make an anti-Microsoft web site stealing?
Existing law makes no provisions for a seller to dictate to a buyer what he may or may not use a product for.
But a EULA does. And if a EULA is equivalent to a binding contract, then it can be enforced as a contract can be.
Twenty years ago no one would ever have considered a EULA the same as a contract--no one signs it, there is no proof of who exactly agrees to it. But no one should underestimate the power of established tradition. As EULA's become more and more ubiquitous, they will become more and more accepted by the legal community. And eventually and gradually, without a single legislature passing any law on the matter, the courts will rule by precedent and make EULA's legally binding. And then you can trust that the consequences of forcing average consumers to agree to long and complex legal documents whenever they want to buy a common consumer good will be felt. The law will intrude even deeper into people's everyday lives, making everyone less free. No, people won't read them more carefully--that's impossible anyway, the EULA's necessary to install something as common as Windows with the necessary updates already includes more pages than the Bible. People won't choose to live as hermits in the woods, either--rather they will simply bend their backs and bear the burdens of a few more laws.
You freak! You need to go outside like me. I mean, I'm posting directly from The Two Towers movie line in Denver with my mobile interenet connection. There was even a girl here dressed up like Galadriel. She left though...
I pointed out the spelling error in the post itself, dumbass. That's what makes you the Spelling Nazi. If you can't stand bad spelling even as a joke, I'll bet that reading Chaucer gives you conniptions. Good goddamn, but I'd hate to make your acquaintance in real life.
Slashdot Mirror
Strikes a balance? Yeah - I guess - between taking advantage of public apathy and provoking total public outrage. Guess they struck a balance there.
Now, that statement was just wonderful.
You search by pronounciation as well as store by it. The Census Office has stored names by this method for more than a century.
The term "fair use" is often misapplied on slashdot. Fair use applies to quotations of works for certain purposes.
The rights that the DMCA takes away are different. The DMCA enshrines into law any control mechanism placed into a digital work. That control mechanism might limit playback in different places around the world. It might limit the number of times a work can be viewed. It might limit viewings to only one machine. If an author of a book requested that a person had to stand on his head while reading that author's intellectual 'property,' (legally purchesed at a book store) he would be laughed at. Moreover the author would have no legal means to enforce the request. On the other hand, if that author creates some equivalent digital requirement (protection) for his work, the DMCA is there to enforce it.
The DMCA was a massive switch in legal viewpoint. Pre-DMCA, an author had limited rights over his work. Mainly he controlled when and who could copy it. Post-DMCA, the term 'intellectual property' has been taken literally, and digital copyright holders are treated as owners of their information--whether or not they have sold you a copy. This is a massive sea-change, and one that is not at all beneficial to society.
Are you kidding--those guys aren't real Linux fanatics. Real Linux fanatics look through Linus' trash! And I can tell Linus understands me, because the restraining order is only set at 50 feet.
Good points except for the last. A few numbers from 000 to 999 jump out at human minds for whatever reason. (And most people would have different lists.) 123 is the most easy to pick out because we all saw that sequence so often and so early while learning to count. 321 is the opposite, and therefore stands out. 666 will stand out to people of certain religious persuasions, and so on. All in all, the chances of getting a--let's call it--"humanly significant" number is not unity.
Therefore estimating the number of "humanly significant" numbers is the problem. It's useful, as we've seen, because it will allow us to tell random statistics from human picked out numbers: for example, 321 Studios vs. 321 studios.
Off the top of my head, here are the numbers that might really stand out to me: 000,111,...,666,...999,123,321,314(seen pi too often),271(e), and probably the first few primes (002,003,005,007).
That's about 20 numbers off the top of my head. Even if we imagine 50 numbers as the upper limit for "humanly significant" numbers between 000 and 999, then that is still only a 3-5% chance of getting one of those numbers in a single trial. That, of course, doesn't mean much on its own, but in combination with other known probabilities (they multiply!), it can be used to make judgements.
Don't throw good money after bad. Your money will not save Mandrake. Instead, it will wind up in a few lucky creditors' (and their lawyers') pockets after bankruptcy proceedings.
If you have some money that you want to donate to a good cause, pick one where it will do some good. I don't care whether it's the Salvation Army or the EFF, but be effective with your donations. Let the market take care of the less effective corporations--that's what it does.
I have never read such an great post on slashdot. Instant friend!
My eyes hurt after reading those. Couldn't slashdot have linked to the Onion or someplace good instead?
Your house is in SOVIET RUSSIA?
as long as you don't have the exact same image on the screen forever
I thought that was the problem in the first place...
Brilliant riposte. How could I ever reply to such a witty retort? I'm speechless.
Goddamn, but that is just dumb. Your first point is completely wrong, and your second point shows that you didn't even understand the topic.
Juries get to read large chunks of the law all of the time. They usually receive an interpretation of the statute from the judge as well. The two are not exclusive. If you ever sit on a criminal jury, you may find yourself making decisions as to which statute best fits the crime--all from the statutes as they are written.
Your second point claiming that "the jury is only allowed to decide the facts of the case within the law as it is written," is true (whatever the libertarians have to say about it) but beside the point. You're way off in left field with it. There is no evidence whatsoever that the jury is trying to decide whether or not the law is just--rather they want the text of it to see whether or not the DMCA applies in this case. That is a common request and rarely turned down.
In a few years after you graduate high school you will be called for jury duty (god help us) and find out what it is really like.
I think the real story is that after the "mad pierce" incident, he bacame known as "bamboo dick."
I don't know. This troll didn't flow quite as well as one could hope. Good sig though.
It constantly amazes me that there are numerous readers of slashdot that take posts like these at face value.
h-bar/2 is used when you are using expectation values of the wave equation to calculate the delta terms. Bohm, amoung others, uses h-bar. There is no set way to write it, because the expectation values aren't always used. If you are going to use the equation, you simply need to know what you are doing with it. I could care less what the chemists call cannonical.
divided by 4*pi (not 2*pi, as stated in previous post)
No, I'm right. But, so are you, interestingly enough. Anything within about a factor of 10 of h-bar is allowable because of the different ways of calculating those values for a wave-packet.
Oh ye of little faith!
delta E * delta t >= h-bar
Therefore, the slashdot editors are being careful about not determining the time too precisely lest Max Planck and the German Physical Society accidently obtain an energy with an order of magnitude anywhere between a butterfly's wings and a supernova.
Stealing is bad. That's good to know.
Is installing a program on more than one computer stealing? Is installing bitkeeper and contributing to cvs without paying $5000 stealing? Is installing a program on a multi-processor box without paying for the multi-processor version stealing? Is using frontpage to make an anti-Microsoft web site stealing?
Existing law makes no provisions for a seller to dictate to a buyer what he may or may not use a product for.
But a EULA does. And if a EULA is equivalent to a binding contract, then it can be enforced as a contract can be.
Twenty years ago no one would ever have considered a EULA the same as a contract--no one signs it, there is no proof of who exactly agrees to it. But no one should underestimate the power of established tradition. As EULA's become more and more ubiquitous, they will become more and more accepted by the legal community. And eventually and gradually, without a single legislature passing any law on the matter, the courts will rule by precedent and make EULA's legally binding. And then you can trust that the consequences of forcing average consumers to agree to long and complex legal documents whenever they want to buy a common consumer good will be felt. The law will intrude even deeper into people's everyday lives, making everyone less free. No, people won't read them more carefully--that's impossible anyway, the EULA's necessary to install something as common as Windows with the necessary updates already includes more pages than the Bible. People won't choose to live as hermits in the woods, either--rather they will simply bend their backs and bear the burdens of a few more laws.
Oh shit--Amazon just patented Christmas.
Unless I had truncated the phrase from "the world war that had just occured." Which is fair usage. Badda bing! My grammar triumphs once again.
You freak! You need to go outside like me. I mean, I'm posting directly from The Two Towers movie line in Denver with my mobile interenet connection. There was even a girl here dressed up like Galadriel. She left though...
Body of 'a' victim I expect. It killed more people than the world war.
I think many programmers have a lot to learn from this tale. We now have two useful phrases:
"It's not a bug, it's a feature."
"It's there to protect my intellectual property and keep my program from being exploited by the military."
I pointed out the spelling error in the post itself, dumbass. That's what makes you the Spelling Nazi. If you can't stand bad spelling even as a joke, I'll bet that reading Chaucer gives you conniptions. Good goddamn, but I'd hate to make your acquaintance in real life.
I thought that I made that clear...Well, not clear enough for the Spelling Nazi, I suppose.