content publishers are going to expect, and get, I'm afraid, all the legal protection they want... with or without copyright in place, because the production of new content is perceived as healthy for a developing culturally rich society, and the exclusivity that copyright currently offers is a significant incentive for people to publish in the first place. If this were not the case, a majority of works would simply be immediately put into public domain. Without copyright, other legally mandated measures would have to be taken.
Your reasoning is faulty. You claim a dystopia results from lack of copyright, but in fact your dystopia results from your until-now-hidden premise that content publishers are going to get all the legal protection they want. But they want copyright, so that premise contradicts the no-copyright scenario.
You're right that a dystopia does result from giving the content publishers everything they want. But that's not the hypothetical no-copyright world. That's the real world of DMCA, SOPA, and PIPA.
The freedom that you describe in absence of copyright comes at a painfully high price... I described such a distopia in my comment above.
Your dystopia doesn't even make sense.
Book publishers can't make money... except, well, some do make money publishing public domain works today. I will concede that they will be able to make far less money.
Book readers would pause and display an unskippable ad... wait a minute, that's what we have today, with DVD and Blu-Ray and strong copyright. Without copyright and the DMCA, those unskippable ads will be history before you can say "Elcomsoft".
'General purpose programmable computers would be prohibited from connecting to any public network without a special government granted license to do so, and working on free and open source software would likely be seen as a "terrorist activity"' -- no, that's where SOPA is leading us. That's the exact opposite of what would result from lack of copyright. That's what results from strong copyright enforcement. Because that's what it takes to enforce copyright.
So instead we should just take it on blind faith that those features would have been invented, but for patents? At what point does this "software patents stifle innovation" become a religion, rather than a conclusion based off evidence?
You've already made "software patents don't stifle innovation" a religious tenet by refusing to accept any evidence for the opposite except that which by nature cannot exist. There's plenty of evidence (included ad nauseum in most slashdot patent stories) that software patents do stifle and are stifling innovation, but you're not willing to accept anything but examples of innovations that don't exist because of patents.
A lot of Slashdotters believe this, but none are able to offer any evidence other than a gut feeling, and gut feelings won't convince Congress to amend the Patent Act. Do you have any evidence? Software has been patentable for about 30 years... How has our progress been slowed in that time, and where would we be now otherwise?
What evidence do you want? Do I need to point to software which hasn't been written, features which don't exist, either because patents prevented someone from implementing them, or rational fear of patents prevented someone from implementing them, or the time and resources which could have been spent building them was spent instead "inventing around" or fighting bogus patents? Because I can't do that. You know why I can't do that?
BECAUSE THE PROGRESS WHICH WAS PREVENTED BY PATENTS DOESN'T EXIST TO BE POINTED AT! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!
the actual harm done to the worth of copyright as a whole even by entirely non-commercial infringement practiced on a wide enough scale could far outweigh the damages done by any number of commercial endeavors
This is true. Now. Before, the essential conflict between copyright and technology, and copyright and free speech, could always be separated by some artificial distinction, like commercial v. noncommercial infringement. But now you've got to choose: to preserve copyright, you need laws like the DMCA, you need laws like SOPA and PIPA and the follow-ons to them. If you want to hold all the infringers down you need prior restraint and a worldwide Internet Copyright Police with vast power. So which do you want? Copyright, or freedom? You can't have both.
It's not the only answer and appealing to slippery slope and false dilemma arguments isn't going to win you the argument.
It's easy to pooh-pooh the slippery slope when you're way up near the top. Now that we're well and truly on it and headed downward at high speed, it's pretty damn silly.
Wow. I have no idea how you got modded informative at all.
Because he's right and you're wrong.
You are buying both the record and a legal entitlement granted by the copyright holder.
No. There is no legal entitlement granted by the copyright holder when they sell you a "phonorecord" (the legal term for an artifact embodying an audio recording), aside from title to that particular phonorecord. There are legal effects of holding title to that phonorecord.
Merely buying the phonorecord does not give you the right to publicly perform (play) it.
I'm simply amazed that you thought you were only buying a physical object, and a not also a representation (display or performance) of a copyrighted work. Your actions are controlled by law through copyrights, also known as legal entitlements. Unless the copyright holder grants you permission to do so, which they do by granting you legal entitlements they are in turn allowed to grant under copyright law, you are not allowed to enjoy the work.
You cannot buy a "display" or "performance", though you can pay to see a display or hear a performance, or even to have a performance put on for you. You can, however, privately enjoy any copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder, though you might need permission from the owner of the particular copy. If you steal a CD and play it in the privacy of your own car, you have not committed any violation of copyright.
Engineers are the same in politics as they are elsewhere. They'll fix any well-defined problem, but the solution can only meet two of three criteria: fast, cheap, and high-quality. But voters (like customers) will want all three, and won't define the problem well.
So we'll give them what they ask for, but not what they want. Unless we're Dogbert, in which case we'll give them what we want to give them and tell 'em that's what they want.
Then we can get rid of almost all that damned handicapped parking.
And if someone does take the remaining space so the poor sod who can't use an exoskeleton can't use it, another guy with an exoskeleton can just pick up the car and move it out of the way.
According to TFA's TFA "The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents"
I haven't checked the text of the legislation, but this seems to indicate that it's still only foreigners Bush IV can lock up forever.
Doesn't matter if they are symmetric, or what philosophical hoops you jump through in your head: These factors are *real*. You screw with someone else -- they will turn around and screw with you.
Often they'll screw with you even if you don't screw with them. And sometimes if you screw with them enough they'll submit, though I wouldn't bet on it with the Afghans.
But you keep using the language of morals while denying you're referring to right and wrong. You're implying that if the US attempts to prevent domestic atrocities, it not only will get another 9/11, but will deserve it. If it's not about philosophy or morals or anything like that, then it's merely about force, and the stronger party can do what it wants as long as it can absorb whatever the weaker party can give out. If it is about morals, then you are claiming it is wrong for someone outside the culture to intervene in the execution of a woman accused of being raped, but that the execution itself is not wrong, because it falls within cultural norms. Which is not a point of view I happen to subscribe to.
They should start by targeting the entire U.S. and other "pro-SOPA" countries and leave the other countries alone. Why punish people all over the world just because a small minority of people in the U.S. are corrupt douchebag cockheads?
Because
A) These are American-based companies and will have to follow SOPA even in their overseas operations. B) Once SOPA passes in the US, the copyright industry will immediately move to have it implemented in Europe in the name of harmonizing. And the European corrupt douchebag cockheads will go for it. The rest of the world will follow, because no country has any shortage of corrupt douchebag cockheads.
The sour grapes you're hearing are not from people who were OS/2 or Thinkpad loyalists, they're from present and former employees.
As a former employee, I'm quite happy with Gerstner. Mostly because he quadrupled the price of the stock I held. He also sold off the business unit I was it, but eh, I was quitting anyway.
For once, a CEO thought beyond the next quarterly report. Be careful what you complain about.
Too bad he didn't think so far ahead to see what happens when IBM makes inroads into China's market and China turns around and screws them. Which is basically inevitable.
First, separate the parking into privileged spots (which includes the handicapped spaces), normal spaces and way out in the most remote parts the penalty spaces.
Already done in some parking lots, particularly grocery stores. First you have the handicapped spots. Then the pregnant woman spots. Then the elderly spots, then the parents spots. Then the employee of the month spot. Then, way out in the back, one spot partially blocked with snow, trash, broken shopping carts, or other debris, for an able-bodied person.
There is a reason "convicted in absentia" actually exists as a real legal thing.
Usually it's to facilitate injustice.
When Ira Einhorn was being extradited from France, they objected to the fact that he'd been convicted in absentia and insisted that Pennsylvania grant him a new trial. So they understand it's unjust too.
Mostly it benefits the morally handicapped -- those who are willing to pretend some illness (or use actual obesity) to get a better parking spot (or a parking spot at all). Me, I had surgery on my hip and got to walk on crutches past a dozen handicapped spots to get to work, most of which were empty and the rest of which were occupied by people who could walk better than I could. Once I went to a movie theater, and had to cross a busy street (on crutches) because the only lot which didn't have a busy street between it and the door was all handicapped parking.
So all that crap about how handicapped parking is important and how if I needed it I'd appreciate it... no, sorry. I needed it; as I expected, it wasn't actually there and was actually harmful. Now I've got arthritis of the knees; still no handicapped permit, still bitter when I've got to walk past acres of handicapped parking.
The regulations just went into effect today and there's no funds for enforcement; stores will certainly take advantage of this and sell off any remaining stock of those 95W bulbs, but they are not legal starting today.
A loooooong time ago when hiring I interviewed a lot of older candidates (40-60s.....I was in my 20s at the time) since I was determined not to be biased; however the barrier was less the skill set than the general presentation level. Suit REQUIRED, tie REQUIRED, teeth REQUIRED (sorry), male grooming REQUIRED....male/female hygiene REQUIRED!!!
Teeth required? That could be anything from irrelevant to illegal (if the tooth loss is age or disease related).
The standards are as I have stated; now you're just lying about them so they don't seem as bad as they are. No bulb with a wattage of over 72W and light output in the range of 1490-2600 lumens are permitted under the new standards. Phillips has a halogen incandescent which just qualifies. No normal incandescents do.
To make things worse, by 2020, the standard will be 45 lumens per watt. Which eliminates the halogen incandescents and pretty much everything else which produces a decent spectrum.
The Sylvania bulb you linked to is 1560 lumens@95W, and does not meet the standards, which require a lamp with 1490-2600 lumens to have a maximum wattage of 72W. The GE bulb is 1510 lumens@95W and also does not meet the standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Your reasoning is faulty. You claim a dystopia results from lack of copyright, but in fact your dystopia results from your until-now-hidden premise that content publishers are going to get all the legal protection they want. But they want copyright, so that premise contradicts the no-copyright scenario.
You're right that a dystopia does result from giving the content publishers everything they want. But that's not the hypothetical no-copyright world. That's the real world of DMCA, SOPA, and PIPA.
Your dystopia doesn't even make sense.
Book publishers can't make money... except, well, some do make money publishing public domain works today. I will concede that they will be able to make far less money.
Book readers would pause and display an unskippable ad... wait a minute, that's what we have today, with DVD and Blu-Ray and strong copyright. Without copyright and the DMCA, those unskippable ads will be history before you can say "Elcomsoft".
'General purpose programmable computers would be prohibited from connecting to any public network without a special government granted license to do so, and working on free and open source software would likely be seen as a "terrorist activity"' -- no, that's where SOPA is leading us. That's the exact opposite of what would result from lack of copyright. That's what results from strong copyright enforcement. Because that's what it takes to enforce copyright.
You've already made "software patents don't stifle innovation" a religious tenet by refusing to accept any evidence for the opposite except that which by nature cannot exist. There's plenty of evidence (included ad nauseum in most slashdot patent stories) that software patents do stifle and are stifling innovation, but you're not willing to accept anything but examples of innovations that don't exist because of patents.
What evidence do you want? Do I need to point to software which hasn't been written, features which don't exist, either because patents prevented someone from implementing them, or rational fear of patents prevented someone from implementing them, or the time and resources which could have been spent building them was spent instead "inventing around" or fighting bogus patents? Because I can't do that. You know why I can't do that?
BECAUSE THE PROGRESS WHICH WAS PREVENTED BY PATENTS DOESN'T EXIST TO BE POINTED AT! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!
This is true. Now. Before, the essential conflict between copyright and technology, and copyright and free speech, could always be separated by some artificial distinction, like commercial v. noncommercial infringement. But now you've got to choose: to preserve copyright, you need laws like the DMCA, you need laws like SOPA and PIPA and the follow-ons to them. If you want to hold all the infringers down you need prior restraint and a worldwide Internet Copyright Police with vast power. So which do you want? Copyright, or freedom? You can't have both.
It's easy to pooh-pooh the slippery slope when you're way up near the top. Now that we're well and truly on it and headed downward at high speed, it's pretty damn silly.
Because he's right and you're wrong.
No. There is no legal entitlement granted by the copyright holder when they sell you a "phonorecord" (the legal term for an artifact embodying an audio recording), aside from title to that particular phonorecord. There are legal effects of holding title to that phonorecord.
Merely buying the phonorecord does not give you the right to publicly perform (play) it.
You cannot buy a "display" or "performance", though you can pay to see a display or hear a performance, or even to have a performance put on for you. You can, however, privately enjoy any copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder, though you might need permission from the owner of the particular copy. If you steal a CD and play it in the privacy of your own car, you have not committed any violation of copyright.
An economic socialist and a social conservative? So you'll take all our money and refuse to let us have porn or drugs? Ugh.
So we'll give them what they ask for, but not what they want. Unless we're Dogbert, in which case we'll give them what we want to give them and tell 'em that's what they want.
...so taking what he says 100% seriously is probably a mistake. Even if Dilbert does often appear to be a thinly-veiled documentary.
Then we can get rid of almost all that damned handicapped parking.
And if someone does take the remaining space so the poor sod who can't use an exoskeleton can't use it, another guy with an exoskeleton can just pick up the car and move it out of the way.
According to TFA's TFA
"The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents"
I haven't checked the text of the legislation, but this seems to indicate that it's still only foreigners Bush IV can lock up forever.
Often they'll screw with you even if you don't screw with them. And sometimes if you screw with them enough they'll submit, though I wouldn't bet on it with the Afghans.
But you keep using the language of morals while denying you're referring to right and wrong. You're implying that if the US attempts to prevent domestic atrocities, it not only will get another 9/11, but will deserve it. If it's not about philosophy or morals or anything like that, then it's merely about force, and the stronger party can do what it wants as long as it can absorb whatever the weaker party can give out. If it is about morals, then you are claiming it is wrong for someone outside the culture to intervene in the execution of a woman accused of being raped, but that the execution itself is not wrong, because it falls within cultural norms. Which is not a point of view I happen to subscribe to.
Because
A) These are American-based companies and will have to follow SOPA even in their overseas operations.
B) Once SOPA passes in the US, the copyright industry will immediately move to have it implemented in Europe in the name of harmonizing. And the European corrupt douchebag cockheads will go for it. The rest of the world will follow, because no country has any shortage of corrupt douchebag cockheads.
As a former employee, I'm quite happy with Gerstner. Mostly because he quadrupled the price of the stock I held. He also sold off the business unit I was it, but eh, I was quitting anyway.
Too bad he didn't think so far ahead to see what happens when IBM makes inroads into China's market and China turns around and screws them. Which is basically inevitable.
Already done in some parking lots, particularly grocery stores. First you have the handicapped spots. Then the pregnant woman spots. Then the elderly spots, then the parents spots. Then the employee of the month spot. Then, way out in the back, one spot partially blocked with snow, trash, broken shopping carts, or other debris, for an able-bodied person.
The 95W bulbs have been around for decades. GE Miser series. Google has a newspaper ad from 1982 about them.
GE has a list of their now-banned bulbs. It includes the 95W/LL50 you referenced.
Even if you could somehow solve the formidable technical challenges, environmentalism would prevent any such large-scale engineering project.
Usually it's to facilitate injustice.
When Ira Einhorn was being extradited from France, they objected to the fact that he'd been convicted in absentia and insisted that Pennsylvania grant him a new trial. So they understand it's unjust too.
Mostly it benefits the morally handicapped -- those who are willing to pretend some illness (or use actual obesity) to get a better parking spot (or a parking spot at all). Me, I had surgery on my hip and got to walk on crutches past a dozen handicapped spots to get to work, most of which were empty and the rest of which were occupied by people who could walk better than I could. Once I went to a movie theater, and had to cross a busy street (on crutches) because the only lot which didn't have a busy street between it and the door was all handicapped parking.
So all that crap about how handicapped parking is important and how if I needed it I'd appreciate it... no, sorry. I needed it; as I expected, it wasn't actually there and was actually harmful. Now I've got arthritis of the knees; still no handicapped permit, still bitter when I've got to walk past acres of handicapped parking.
The regulations just went into effect today and there's no funds for enforcement; stores will certainly take advantage of this and sell off any remaining stock of those 95W bulbs, but they are not legal starting today.
Teeth required? That could be anything from irrelevant to illegal (if the tooth loss is age or disease related).
The standards are as I have stated; now you're just lying about them so they don't seem as bad as they are. No bulb with a wattage of over 72W and light output in the range of 1490-2600 lumens are permitted under the new standards. Phillips has a halogen incandescent which just qualifies. No normal incandescents do.
To make things worse, by 2020, the standard will be 45 lumens per watt. Which eliminates the halogen incandescents and pretty much everything else which produces a decent spectrum.
The Sylvania bulb you linked to is 1560 lumens@95W, and does not meet the standards, which require a lamp with 1490-2600 lumens to have a maximum wattage of 72W. The GE bulb is 1510 lumens@95W and also does not meet the standards.