Yeah I can see the intent here but the execution may be a bit heavy handed. There are so many idiots connected to the internet that this was almost an inevitable result of any kind of cyberwarfare research done by the government. Of course it will be largely misinterpreted by all types of fringers/Obama Haters and of course they should be nullified as should any haters, but that doesn't mean that it's an entirely bad idea to protest this.
If you'd had any training at all, you would be acquainted with numerous examples of the same painting by different artists. One comes to mind of a nude reclining on a couch with another clothed women standing. That painting was done by several of what art historians consider to be giants.
Yup and so did I, with a different woman in the nude and a different woman clothed and on a different couch, it occurs to me that I am arguing with a moron, you lose thanks for playing.
Actually there is a way and it is supposed to be provided by your cable provider on request by law if you are a subscriber. Just get a tuner that takes a cable card. What's that you say, your cable provider doesn't have that? well now is the time to start screaming to the FCC. Make the Cable companies follow the existing law.
Virus is completely different animal than a Trojan. Yes C64 had virus programs but they were easy to catch as well. They took so long writing themselves onto the floppy that if you inserted a floppy and the drive started working (hard not to notice they were loud) then you could pretty much assume you had a virus. Pretty bad when the best virus checker you had was your ears.
Always the way isn't flame grammar or spelling and you make a different but similar mistake. My pet peeve has nothing to do with being a grammar Nazi i couldn't tell you how to use perfect grammar. but I hate hitting logical skips in sentences.
they can feel better then their other isheep cohorts.
What did their other iSheep cohorts do? I'm waiting. What exactly did their other iSheep cohorts do after the first set were able to feel better? Please finish the fucking sentence, it's very frustrating when you leave us hanging like this.
Perhaps the iSheep know the difference between then and than. You see everybody has a fault and knowing that you know also makes you feel better than your other language abusing cohorts.
My Commodore is completely impervious to trojans. No modem, no net, and even when turned on I would catch the guy trying to get the data off of it before he could get it all written to the slow floppy drive.
Yeah if you can find the actual directory that contains the Applications and answer yes to the mass delete question. Yeah I suppose you could remove a user's applications.
Actually it is my first choice because the entire tool chain including the nifty IDE and interface designer is free and shipped with the OS out the door. And don't try to kid me the xpress versions of VS have so many limitations that they are useless for anything commercial. I think you just have your head in the sand. There are plenty of programmers on the east coast that use the Mac.
Oh yeah did we mention that those 3000 developers came in second. Standing on the shoulders of giants does not make you better than the giants it just makes you smart enough to copy them and do it one better.
Yes I am well aware that the works that Cinderella, Snow white and many other works that Disney re-invented were and still are in the public domain. I've seen performances of Snow White and Cinderella that are quite charming but bore no resemblance to what Disney produced. Thank you for pointing that out. Did you have a point there. You are aware that they had been public domain for nearly a hundred years before they were re-used. I saw no real valid reason to increase the copyright term but now I also see no valid reason to shorten it. I see people whining that it costs to much to re-invent a popular fiction or music item. For god's sake invent your own and get over it. Stand on those shoulders, quit watering the fields of creativity with negativity. The same shoulders that most of the modern artists stood on are still there.
Incidentally I am an award winning (linoleum block and wood cut) print and (3D and photo) digital artist and I have sold my works in art shows up and down the west coast. I have taken a photo taken by someone I respect and got permission to re-use it in a digital work but I procured the required license to do this. I have painted copies of Picasso, degas and Rembrandt as well as several other giants and by standing on their shoulders I have learned quite a lot. But never have I painted a distorted or re-worked version of a Picasso and called it art and tried to sell it.
I don't sing, I have never sung happy birthday to my relatives. There may have been other people present that did, but personally I haven't. Small abuses happen all the time and always will, there is still no valid reason given for the copyright length to be shortened. Show me the harm! Forget the money show me the harm!
Standing on the shoulders of giants, does not mean grabbing pieces of their work and slapping it into your own, for the sake of what, your inability to produce that kind of beat or image yourself. I don't paint distorted Picassos and call them original. Get off of this phrase as a cause celebre. Standing on the shoulders of Giants means learning how to mix your paints the same way a particular artist did so you can produce original works in his color palette or with the same emotional feel. Learning how to look at the stars and finding a better way to determine if that thing you thought was a star is really an NEO about to slam into the moon. Copyright has nothing to do with the shoulders of giants. All copyright is for is to keep the artist/scientist in beans and bullets long enough to produce more or for his progeny to do the same. The length is really irrelevant as if it's good and stands the test of time great but eventually a work is so old and not nearly relevant enough for anyone to claim it and it becomes PD anyway.
Disney has introduced many new artists that have indeed stood on the shoulders of giants, look at Don Bluth, and Tim Burton as just two that were produced by the Disney millions. I still have not heard an argument that really means anything.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Instead of whining and denigrating someone that has asked you a question to which you seem to know the answer. Please define exactly how the current system does not accomplish this and why exactly shortening copyright terms would do any good? Good is not defined as preventing anyone from making money from art and their work so be specific please.
Because your "right" to sing along with the radio, alone in your car, without paying for a license to perform that work, depends entirely on the inability of the RIAA and "interested" congresscritters to catch you. Hmmm I don't see this as a problem in everyday life. Since there is no public present it is not a public performance. Even if it were, this is a ludicrous example. I still fail to see the harm here.
Because documentary filmmakers regularly "censor" any music or visible brands in something that supposedly presents a realistic snapshot of its subject matter. Hmm another not so useful example. If you want to use it pay for it. Art costs, either in time or licenses you pick. There are cases of fair use where a license is not required if the subject matter is being criticized or used as an example. The law has made provisos for this. No harm seen here.
Because we like to sing "happy birthday" at parties.
Then pay up cheapskate! Or write your own and make it as popular as this one.
Because copyright exists for promoting advancement in the arts for MY and your benefit, and to a lesser degree the artists themselves.
please explain exactly how this impacts your and my life exactly. So far you have simply whined that "Copyright makes things expensive" with no real alternatives and no valid examples of how any of this impacts, affects or influences creativity.
In conclusion I have to say that I fail to see why the failure of what you call "original work" should in any way influence copyright reform. I hear a great deal of whining about what a license costs and no actual examples of egregious harm being done by anyone but the RIAA in their somewhat successful attempts to sue the socks off of people that admittedly were violating their copyrights.
Budding artists who wish to trample the on the shoulders of those giants that went before instead of standing on them to gain perspective are also not a real reason for copyright reform. Buck up and tell the world, and me along with it what exactly it is that has you so aggravated. I can't see it here.
No what is illegal is that an employee of Company A who moves to Company B may not contact people HE knows at company A and hire them for company B. But even that has a time limit.
is sure to pique the interest of the US Department of Justice
And why is it going to pique their interest if it never happened? The DOJ can do nothing if it never happened. It isn't even likely to be admissible in any other legal challenge Apple may face. In California it is actually illegal to poach employees within 90 days of leaving a company but it happens anyway. I've been poached at least twice in my career.
Slashdot Mirror
You only need a pretty big botnet genius!
Yeah I can see the intent here but the execution may be a bit heavy handed. There are so many idiots connected to the internet that this was almost an inevitable result of any kind of cyberwarfare research done by the government. Of course it will be largely misinterpreted by all types of fringers/Obama Haters and of course they should be nullified as should any haters, but that doesn't mean that it's an entirely bad idea to protest this.
If you'd had any training at all, you would be acquainted with numerous examples of the same painting by different artists. One comes to mind of a nude reclining on a couch with another clothed women standing. That painting was done by several of what art historians consider to be giants.
Yup and so did I, with a different woman in the nude and a different woman clothed and on a different couch, it occurs to me that I am arguing with a moron, you lose thanks for playing.
Actually there is a way and it is supposed to be provided by your cable provider on request by law if you are a subscriber. Just get a tuner that takes a cable card. What's that you say, your cable provider doesn't have that? well now is the time to start screaming to the FCC. Make the Cable companies follow the existing law.
Virus is completely different animal than a Trojan. Yes C64 had virus programs but they were easy to catch as well. They took so long writing themselves onto the floppy that if you inserted a floppy and the drive started working (hard not to notice they were loud) then you could pretty much assume you had a virus. Pretty bad when the best virus checker you had was your ears.
Always the way isn't flame grammar or spelling and you make a different but similar mistake. My pet peeve has nothing to do with being a grammar Nazi i couldn't tell you how to use perfect grammar. but I hate hitting logical skips in sentences.
they can feel better then their other isheep cohorts.
What did their other iSheep cohorts do? I'm waiting. What exactly did their other iSheep cohorts do after the first set were able to feel better? Please finish the fucking sentence, it's very frustrating when you leave us hanging like this.
Perhaps the iSheep know the difference between then and than. You see everybody has a fault and knowing that you know also makes you feel better than your other language abusing cohorts.
My Commodore is completely impervious to trojans. No modem, no net, and even when turned on I would catch the guy trying to get the data off of it before he could get it all written to the slow floppy drive.
Yeah if you can find the actual directory that contains the Applications and answer yes to the mass delete question. Yeah I suppose you could remove a user's applications.
Actually it is my first choice because the entire tool chain including the nifty IDE and interface designer is free and shipped with the OS out the door. And don't try to kid me the xpress versions of VS have so many limitations that they are useless for anything commercial. I think you just have your head in the sand. There are plenty of programmers on the east coast that use the Mac.
Wow, did you know that Limewire originated on macs and they even have it on PCs now.
Beware of Geeks bearing gifts.
This comment is worded exactly as intended. Any application of fantastic "Fixed that for you" jokes will be "aplauded". There fixed that for you!
No No he's right, you just aren't looking hard enough. Of course I define most windows programs as an infection anyway so what do I know.
What are you talking about...sigh
Yes, and No. But if you want to pay, you might get an employee to do a back room install for a few silver pieces.
9 women x 1 month != baby.
Oh yeah did we mention that those 3000 developers came in second. Standing on the shoulders of giants does not make you better than the giants it just makes you smart enough to copy them and do it one better.
Yes I am well aware that the works that Cinderella, Snow white and many other works that Disney re-invented were and still are in the public domain. I've seen performances of Snow White and Cinderella that are quite charming but bore no resemblance to what Disney produced. Thank you for pointing that out. Did you have a point there. You are aware that they had been public domain for nearly a hundred years before they were re-used. I saw no real valid reason to increase the copyright term but now I also see no valid reason to shorten it. I see people whining that it costs to much to re-invent a popular fiction or music item. For god's sake invent your own and get over it. Stand on those shoulders, quit watering the fields of creativity with negativity. The same shoulders that most of the modern artists stood on are still there.
Incidentally I am an award winning (linoleum block and wood cut) print and (3D and photo) digital artist and I have sold my works in art shows up and down the west coast. I have taken a photo taken by someone I respect and got permission to re-use it in a digital work but I procured the required license to do this. I have painted copies of Picasso, degas and Rembrandt as well as several other giants and by standing on their shoulders I have learned quite a lot. But never have I painted a distorted or re-worked version of a Picasso and called it art and tried to sell it.
I don't sing, I have never sung happy birthday to my relatives. There may have been other people present that did, but personally I haven't. Small abuses happen all the time and always will, there is still no valid reason given for the copyright length to be shortened. Show me the harm! Forget the money show me the harm!
Standing on the shoulders of giants, does not mean grabbing pieces of their work and slapping it into your own, for the sake of what, your inability to produce that kind of beat or image yourself. I don't paint distorted Picassos and call them original. Get off of this phrase as a cause celebre.
Standing on the shoulders of Giants means learning how to mix your paints the same way a particular artist did so you can produce original works in his color palette or with the same emotional feel. Learning how to look at the stars and finding a better way to determine if that thing you thought was a star is really an NEO about to slam into the moon. Copyright has nothing to do with the shoulders of giants. All copyright is for is to keep the artist/scientist in beans and bullets long enough to produce more or for his progeny to do the same. The length is really irrelevant as if it's good and stands the test of time great but eventually a work is so old and not nearly relevant enough for anyone to claim it and it becomes PD anyway.
Disney has introduced many new artists that have indeed stood on the shoulders of giants, look at Don Bluth, and Tim Burton as just two that were produced by the Disney millions. I still have not heard an argument that really means anything.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Instead of whining and denigrating someone that has asked you a question to which you seem to know the answer. Please define exactly how the current system does not accomplish this and why exactly shortening copyright terms would do any good? Good is not defined as preventing anyone from making money from art and their work so be specific please.
Because your "right" to sing along with the radio, alone in your car, without paying for a license to perform that work, depends entirely on the inability of the RIAA and "interested" congresscritters to catch you.
Hmmm I don't see this as a problem in everyday life. Since there is no public present it is not a public performance. Even if it were, this is a ludicrous example. I still fail to see the harm here.
Because documentary filmmakers regularly "censor" any music or visible brands in something that supposedly presents a realistic snapshot of its subject matter.
Hmm another not so useful example. If you want to use it pay for it. Art costs, either in time or licenses you pick. There are cases of fair use where a license is not required if the subject matter is being criticized or used as an example. The law has made provisos for this. No harm seen here.
Because we like to sing "happy birthday" at parties.
Then pay up cheapskate! Or write your own and make it as popular as this one.
Because copyright exists for promoting advancement in the arts for MY and your benefit, and to a lesser degree the artists themselves.
please explain exactly how this impacts your and my life exactly. So far you have simply whined that "Copyright makes things expensive" with no real alternatives and no valid examples of how any of this impacts, affects or influences creativity.
In conclusion I have to say that I fail to see why the failure of what you call "original work" should in any way influence copyright reform. I hear a great deal of whining about what a license costs and no actual examples of egregious harm being done by anyone but the RIAA in their somewhat successful attempts to sue the socks off of people that admittedly were violating their copyrights.
Budding artists who wish to trample the on the shoulders of those giants that went before instead of standing on them to gain perspective are also not a real reason for copyright reform.
Buck up and tell the world, and me along with it what exactly it is that has you so aggravated. I can't see it here.
No what is illegal is that an employee of Company A who moves to Company B may not contact people HE knows at company A and hire them for company B. But even that has a time limit.
is sure to pique the interest of the US Department of Justice
And why is it going to pique their interest if it never happened? The DOJ can do nothing if it never happened. It isn't even likely to be admissible in any other legal challenge Apple may face. In California it is actually illegal to poach employees within 90 days of leaving a company but it happens anyway. I've been poached at least twice in my career.