ugh... must learn to preview.
"...and here's the last smiley:
----------* {8-)
-- a pointy-headed man with goggles, peacefully oblivious to the spider which dangles above his head. when that smiley is needed, the smiley's evolution will be complete."
----------*
-- a pointy-headed man with goggles, peacefully oblivious to the spider which dangles above his head. when that smiley is needed, the smiley's evolution will be complete.
well... that's an idea you have. i'm not sure where you got it (personal experience?) but my psychology prof said something quite different (when i was in psychology). he summarized some studies on sleep and told us that, by incrementally setting their alarm clocks earlier and earlier, a large test group was able to reduce their sleeping time to 5 hours a night without any impaired day to day functionality. some people could cut it back to 4 and still feel great (and perform as well on whatever tests the experimenters subjected them to) and some could only cut it back to 6. in any case, the study (and the others like it) determined that there is no 'set' or 'fixed' amount of sleep humans, as a species, "need". as sleep time is gradually reduced, sleep also becomes more efficient -- more time is spent in the restful stages of sleep each night as a %. the simple truth is that people just enjoy lying in a warm bed for a long time -- even though it's not necessary to regenerate for that long. (i wish i could cite you some studies but i'm lazy)
my prof himself managed to cut his sleep time back to 4 hours a night. the reason he stopped, eventually, is that he just had too much time on his hands in the early hours of the day and nothing with which to fill the time.
frankly, i'm more inclined to believe my prof. he is one of the most skeptical and reasonable people i've met, and he's read a hell of a lot of studies. some day, when i can no longer afford to enjoy lying in bed for many hours, i will put these findings to use:)
i think the main difference is that highways can (pretty much) only be used for driving... but the internet can be used for, say, warez, bomb building, and midget porn. not the kinds of things governments like to pay for:)
Going by your logic, if you whistled some tune (maybe your favorite song) and recorded that, it would be illegal too.
yes, exactly. it would be illegal for distribution. ie, you could get in trouble for giving it away in mass quantities or selling it. it's true.
actually, i don't care what you think. believe what you like. you can even try to market your album of whistled Beatles songs if you like. i won't stop you... just see if anyone minds:)
well, i hope nobody decides to try learning from Gordon Campbell... head of the BC "liberals" who are the most acutely evil political party to rule in BC for many years. with the kinda budget they're running, you can expect them to be thinking of ways to "sell the internet", not bring publicly funded connections to the people.
The only case in which copyright could pose a problem is if audio samples from the original song are used.
unfortunatey, you are just plain wrong on this point... did you know that it's illegal to publish a cover of someone else's song? yes that's right, you plucking your own strings but plucking them in the same way as someone else's song is still illegal. there are two kinds of rights for each piece of music... composition and performance. using audio bits is violating performance rights, as well as composition rights. imitating the melodic patterns in a sequencer is violating composition rights. it's not just about material specifics. it's about ideas. that's what copyright's all about, anyway.
These are mixes, not copies of the original artwork (i.e. variations or inspirations from the original piece.) Does that still make it illegal?
remixes, in the music industry, are not done without authorization. if they -are- done without authorization, they are called "bootlegs". you can be sued for distributing bootleg remixes (that is, remixes without the permission of the original artist). even if you change genres, and add piles of reverb and flange to the main melody, if people still have a good chance of recognizing it and you don't have permission to remix it, you are breaking copyright laws. so yes, it is illegal. music inspired by other music is not illegal, though, i must add.
where it gets blurry is with really tweaked out remixes that are completely different and almost impossible to identify. at that point, if it came down to a court case, the judge would have to make a...well... judgement, and you don't know who it's going to favour. it's a dangerous game. but the ones on that site are blatantly in violation. and a lot of them are really bad too:P
"....this is certainly the place to go to relive the days of youth when you hummed the Super Mario Bros. theme under your breath during class grade school."
actually, i relive it fairly frequently... the new version of the same situation is hearing a blaring cellphone ringtone rendition of the theme song in the middle of a lecture at university.
speaking of video game music... i think megaman had just about the most rokking synth music of any recent video game...
recently, i was inspired to craft a song for a megaman game that (one day will / should have / never did) exist using an analog synth emulator and the Cubase sequencer...
if discontinued, hard to find software is called "abandonware", then products by microsoft ought to be called "smotheringmother-in-lawware"... that shit never leaves you alone:O
1. nobody wants to pay the painter every time someone sees their house. the cost of getting your house painted is understood to include the rights to the "work of art", if you indeed consider a house a work of art. artiste house painters don't get much business, i assume:)
2. who controls the rights is largely determined by who pays for the film. since studios are generally the ones putting up the millions, they no doubt have control. however, directors don't let themselves be cut out of the deal if they have any integrity. through provisions in the agreement, they can have veto power over some the studio's proposed uses of the work. everything is negotiable.
entire genres of music have existed solely because they reuse copyrighted material in new and interesting ways. the genres 'hip hop' and 'drum n bass' grew out of sped up / manipulated beats sampled from james brown and other funk musicians. because creativity managed to sneak by copyright in this case, the music flourished. hell, hip hop is pretty close to #1 genre of music in north america now (even if you hate it... a lot of sucks, yep). as for drum n bass, well, it's one of the most fast-changing and innovative genres out there. whether or not you like these genres, a lot of people do, and the interesting thing is their roots were in copyright violation.
anyway, the point is if you let copyright win every time, you have no idea what future you might be killing.
Slashdot Mirror
ugh... must learn to preview. "...and here's the last smiley:
:( :( :(
----------* {8-)
-- a pointy-headed man with goggles, peacefully oblivious to the spider which dangles above his head. when that smiley is needed, the smiley's evolution will be complete."
...and here's the last smiley:
----------*
-- a pointy-headed man with goggles, peacefully oblivious to the spider which dangles above his head. when that smiley is needed, the smiley's evolution will be complete.
speaking of movies.... how many rocky movies are there? like 17? 17 movies, 1 script :)
well... that's an idea you have. i'm not sure where you got it (personal experience?) but my psychology prof said something quite different (when i was in psychology). he summarized some studies on sleep and told us that, by incrementally setting their alarm clocks earlier and earlier, a large test group was able to reduce their sleeping time to 5 hours a night without any impaired day to day functionality. some people could cut it back to 4 and still feel great (and perform as well on whatever tests the experimenters subjected them to) and some could only cut it back to 6. in any case, the study (and the others like it) determined that there is no 'set' or 'fixed' amount of sleep humans, as a species, "need". as sleep time is gradually reduced, sleep also becomes more efficient -- more time is spent in the restful stages of sleep each night as a %. the simple truth is that people just enjoy lying in a warm bed for a long time -- even though it's not necessary to regenerate for that long. (i wish i could cite you some studies but i'm lazy) my prof himself managed to cut his sleep time back to 4 hours a night. the reason he stopped, eventually, is that he just had too much time on his hands in the early hours of the day and nothing with which to fill the time. frankly, i'm more inclined to believe my prof. he is one of the most skeptical and reasonable people i've met, and he's read a hell of a lot of studies. some day, when i can no longer afford to enjoy lying in bed for many hours, i will put these findings to use :)
big deal, the game already looks like that with the graphics settings i'm using.... gotta keep the frame rate up you know :)
my "antenna" is shrinking just reading about this :/
...but i'm holding out for nanocars. four rotating carbons for tires... a few silicons for the body... and you can drive them in your bloodstream! :D
i think the main difference is that highways can (pretty much) only be used for driving... but the internet can be used for, say, warez, bomb building, and midget porn. not the kinds of things governments like to pay for :)
Telus DSL is 1500/512, typically... you can also get 2500/?? which is what we have at my house. it's real nice :) a lot of options for consumers.
Going by your logic, if you whistled some tune (maybe your favorite song) and recorded that, it would be illegal too.
:)
yes, exactly. it would be illegal for distribution. ie, you could get in trouble for giving it away in mass quantities or selling it. it's true.
actually, i don't care what you think. believe what you like. you can even try to market your album of whistled Beatles songs if you like. i won't stop you... just see if anyone minds
well, i hope nobody decides to try learning from Gordon Campbell... head of the BC "liberals" who are the most acutely evil political party to rule in BC for many years. with the kinda budget they're running, you can expect them to be thinking of ways to "sell the internet", not bring publicly funded connections to the people.
The only case in which copyright could pose a problem is if audio samples from the original song are used.
unfortunatey, you are just plain wrong on this point... did you know that it's illegal to publish a cover of someone else's song? yes that's right, you plucking your own strings but plucking them in the same way as someone else's song is still illegal. there are two kinds of rights for each piece of music... composition and performance. using audio bits is violating performance rights, as well as composition rights. imitating the melodic patterns in a sequencer is violating composition rights. it's not just about material specifics. it's about ideas. that's what copyright's all about, anyway.
on behalf of all of us here, i'd like to welcome the thousands of hard drinkin' gun rack owners to the information superhighway! :P
These are mixes, not copies of the original artwork (i.e. variations or inspirations from the original piece.) Does that still make it illegal?
:P
remixes, in the music industry, are not done without authorization. if they -are- done without authorization, they are called "bootlegs". you can be sued for distributing bootleg remixes (that is, remixes without the permission of the original artist). even if you change genres, and add piles of reverb and flange to the main melody, if people still have a good chance of recognizing it and you don't have permission to remix it, you are breaking copyright laws. so yes, it is illegal. music inspired by other music is not illegal, though, i must add.
where it gets blurry is with really tweaked out remixes that are completely different and almost impossible to identify. at that point, if it came down to a court case, the judge would have to make a...well... judgement, and you don't know who it's going to favour. it's a dangerous game. but the ones on that site are blatantly in violation. and a lot of them are really bad too
"....this is certainly the place to go to relive the days of youth when you hummed the Super Mario Bros. theme under your breath during class grade school."
:/
actually, i relive it fairly frequently... the new version of the same situation is hearing a blaring cellphone ringtone rendition of the theme song in the middle of a lecture at university.
nokia butchers a classic...
speaking of video game music... i think megaman had just about the most rokking synth music of any recent video game... recently, i was inspired to craft a song for a megaman game that (one day will / should have / never did) exist using an analog synth emulator and the Cubase sequencer...
if you care to listen, download it here: Megamanic - 1.6 MB mp3 download
"cloyingware" that's the one!
if discontinued, hard to find software is called "abandonware", then products by microsoft ought to be called "smotheringmother-in-lawware"... that shit never leaves you alone :O
every day, technology brings us a little bit closer to being able to make our younger siblings think that they've gone insane :D
i hope that explains those voices that keep telling me to horde my precious bodily fluids.
1. nobody wants to pay the painter every time someone sees their house. the cost of getting your house painted is understood to include the rights to the "work of art", if you indeed consider a house a work of art. artiste house painters don't get much business, i assume :)
2. who controls the rights is largely determined by who pays for the film. since studios are generally the ones putting up the millions, they no doubt have control. however, directors don't let themselves be cut out of the deal if they have any integrity. through provisions in the agreement, they can have veto power over some the studio's proposed uses of the work. everything is negotiable.
entire genres of music have existed solely because they reuse copyrighted material in new and interesting ways. the genres 'hip hop' and 'drum n bass' grew out of sped up / manipulated beats sampled from james brown and other funk musicians. because creativity managed to sneak by copyright in this case, the music flourished. hell, hip hop is pretty close to #1 genre of music in north america now (even if you hate it... a lot of sucks, yep). as for drum n bass, well, it's one of the most fast-changing and innovative genres out there. whether or not you like these genres, a lot of people do, and the interesting thing is their roots were in copyright violation.
anyway, the point is if you let copyright win every time, you have no idea what future you might be killing.
all that's missing is a little meter that keeps track of how much time you're wasting by building this system.
from the god who brought you light. gotcha.
from the people who brought you gunpowder...
Adam