If the RIAA refuses to publish an artist's work (or even better, numerous artists' work), they will promote what they fear: a second distribution system. One in which they have explicitly relinquished any stake in the recordings that they might otherwise have. 'Course I wouldn't mind seeing them shoot their own foot.
In the USA, we are watching the religious right (30%) lose their hold on the Republican party (roughly 50%), an interesting case in point of Wellspring's scenario:
In a two party system, here's what happens in your example: 40% guy wins. But in the next election, the two 30% candidates
decide they have more in common with each other, and ONE runs, fielding a selection of issues which represents the best of both
(and, often, compromises between the two). Then the 40% candidate loses, until HE can find a enough voters to compromise
with that he can build a faction of more than 50%. In this case, leaders compromise BEFORE the election, and their supporters
can each judge the quality of their compromise before voting. That's why the two major parties have primaries! Each major party
is made up of a thousand minor factions, and the faction which can forge the best representation of the party as a whole gets to be
the party's candidate. Each party races for 50% in the general election. And if one faction decides to try to railroad all the others,
it will get outrun by its competitors.
Firstly, the bill defines a lecture as (my paraphrase) not recorded in any tangible medium. Then it bans class notes as a recording. So once the notes exist, the lecture is excluded.
Secondly, students pay tuition to receive knowledge from professors (they pay for the knowledge transfer) with the implied consent that they will use the knowledge to make a living (i.e. commercial gain, unless they go to work for a NPO).
At worst, the law tells them that they have to wait for the class to adjourn before they start to use what they've learned to earn money.
Thirdly, challenging this law looks like an ideal term project for a law student.
I say sell tickets to the trial (oops, I guess _that's_ probably illegal, or California would've made a mint from those two O.J. trials).
Frankly, after using Perl, every other language I use seems constricting (and even if well-designed or well-intentioned, usually too verbose... *cough*java*cough*).
Frankly, after using Perl, every other language I use seems constricting (and even if well-designed or well-intentioned, usually too verbose... *cough*java*cough*).
SETI, and especially SETI@Home, makes me wonder what a hyper-intelligent extraterrestrial would do , after stumbling upon a planet with an open port to it's global computing network.
At any given moment in history, it only took a few years for our own primitive technology to crack our own primitive security. It would probably take milliseconds for an intelligent race that's mere decades ahead of us, much less centuries or millenia.
While we discuss DDOS attacks that exploit droves of 'script kiddies' who've put insecure PC's on the net, and traffic in once-secret encryption keys for DVD's, we're happily putting our internet into cosmic promiscuous mode.
Of course, there's no such thing as a packet that could get through all of the workload-distributing, Fourier-munging SETI@Home network and do any real damage. Not even hyper-intelligent extraterrestrials could make such a thing, and even if they could, they wouldn't use it to hurt some poor, innocent planet.
But for killing cosmic roaches, that's another story.
Let's take off the gloves and call him the Luddite Librarian.
Lock him in a reading room with a copy of A Canticle for Liebowitz, and after he's read it, ask him, "What good is a preserved book that is never read?"
Make him write MLK's words "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that..." 1000 times, then ask him about the relationship between libraries and ignorance.
All of this statistical bru-ha-ha assumes that the samples are properly collected and isolated in the first place.
With a test as sensitive as DNA analysis, it doesn't take a lot of contamination to blow the test.
Especially if, as here in the USA, the detectives like to take the samples back to the scene for no good reason (as in the O.J.Simpson case).
As a juror, I would not be comfortable convicting on DNA evidence alone. I could not examine the evidence itself, only what prosecutors tell me about the evidence. In the USA, it is the jurors' specific role to examine the evidence and weigh its relevance to the case. Evidence that cannot be examined by the jurors is thin ice, AFAIC. (Of course, my attitude would get me kicked out in the voir dire.)
Ever notice how, from a customer standpoint, a car is a good analogy for a computer. Both are complex systems marketed as a black box, to people who don't understand the product, by arrogant salespeople. Both are hyped to the max.
These days, both can be instruments in violent acts, either intentionally or through neglect.
An exception: no one is giving away cars, and the price isn't crashing.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Vote (TM)
If the RIAA refuses to publish an artist's work (or even better, numerous artists' work), they will promote what they fear: a second distribution system. One in which they have explicitly relinquished any stake in the recordings that they might otherwise have. 'Course I wouldn't mind seeing them shoot their own foot.
Take a look back now and then to be sure it's still there.
IANAL
Firstly, the bill defines a lecture as (my paraphrase) not recorded in any tangible medium. Then it bans class notes as a recording. So once the notes exist, the lecture is excluded.
Secondly, students pay tuition to receive knowledge from professors (they pay for the knowledge transfer) with the implied consent that they will use the knowledge to make a living (i.e. commercial gain, unless they go to work for a NPO).
At worst, the law tells them that they have to wait for the class to adjourn before they start to use what they've learned to earn money.
Thirdly, challenging this law looks like an ideal term project for a law student.
I say sell tickets to the trial (oops, I guess _that's_ probably illegal, or California would've made a mint from those two O.J. trials).
Eureka! When the E-commerce bubble bursts, we can blame it on Columbia!
and I don't mean "African-American."
As with profanity, the appropriateness of humor depends on the environment as much as its content.
I find black humor completely appropriate on Slashdot.
My favorite was a computer as a hole in the beach.
I can't thing of anything other than a hole that is like a hole.
Microsoft cannot pressure high-level judges through "grass roots" efforts.
That kind of tactic helped them lose even more thoroughly in Jackson's court.
The U.S. court system was carefully constructed to be resistant to public opinion.
Judges don't like being called stupid, wrongheaded, or biased, whether it's true or not.
So when a Judge holds your fate in their hands, it's stupid badmouth them.
Microsoft seems not to understand how a court of law operates.
The "freedom of the viewer," eh?
The viewer and the producer share a relationship that is abused if either neglects the other.
Here's an update
> LONDON--A computer hacker endangered shuttle astronauts in 1997 by overloading
...
...
> NASA's communication system, according to a report.
From _LONDON_, "according to a report."
Of course, London newspapers, known the world over for their journalistic integrity, have a direct line to NASA insiders in the USA.
> The report was released ahead of the premiere of "Cyber Attack,"
Ahh, the real reason this rumor is being mongered: publicity for a new publication.
We in the "free world" really need to learn to read between the lines.
I would love to have a configurable discriminator for pornography.
If they can tell what the people in the picture are doing by analyzing the picture, I wouldn't have to sort through all of those GIFS myself...
(grin)
Don't eat the yellow snow!
JAVA IS THE COBOL++ OF THE INTERNET.
There, I feel better now.
well-intentioned, usually too verbose... *cough*java*cough*).
JAVA IS THE COBOL++ OF THE INTERNET.
There, I feel better now.
SETI, and especially SETI@Home, makes me wonder what a hyper-intelligent extraterrestrial would do , after stumbling upon a planet with an open port to it's global computing network.
At any given moment in history, it only took a few years for our own primitive technology to crack our own primitive security. It would probably take milliseconds for an intelligent race that's mere decades ahead of us, much less centuries or millenia.
While we discuss DDOS attacks that exploit droves of 'script kiddies' who've put insecure PC's on the net, and traffic in once-secret encryption keys for DVD's, we're happily putting our internet into cosmic promiscuous mode.
Of course, there's no such thing as a packet that could get through all of the workload-distributing, Fourier-munging SETI@Home network and do any real damage. Not even hyper-intelligent extraterrestrials could make such a thing, and even if they could, they wouldn't use it to hurt some poor, innocent planet.
But for killing cosmic roaches, that's another story.
Millenia from now, will our era be marked by a thin, global era of iridium?
Just like the dinosaurs......
Utah is one of those places that deserves itself.
I choose my media based on content, not format.
I have different times of my day when each of the different media is more convenient (than at other times.)
Each of the media formats has a variety of content and editorial bias. Within any given media, I select by content.
I think I would be stupid to throw out a good source based on their format. I select by content. That's what's important in a news medium. Content.
FODDER FOR THE MPAA LINE READER
decrypt dvd decss matrix hollywood linux netherlands torvalds royalties
All of this statistical bru-ha-ha assumes that the samples are properly collected and isolated in the first place.
With a test as sensitive as DNA analysis, it doesn't take a lot of contamination to blow the test.
Especially if, as here in the USA, the detectives like to take the samples back to the scene for no good reason (as in the O.J.Simpson case).
As a juror, I would not be comfortable convicting on DNA evidence alone. I could not examine the evidence itself, only what prosecutors tell me about the evidence. In the USA, it is the jurors' specific role to examine the evidence and weigh its relevance to the case. Evidence that cannot be examined by the jurors is thin ice, AFAIC. (Of course, my attitude would get me kicked out in the voir dire.)
Ever notice how, from a customer standpoint, a car is a good analogy for a computer. Both are complex systems marketed as a black box, to people who don't understand the product, by arrogant salespeople. Both are hyped to the max.
These days, both can be instruments in violent acts, either intentionally or through neglect.
An exception: no one is giving away cars, and the price isn't crashing.
Like, Shagadelic?