This would actually be great... because it would mean that the option in Windows that turns off autorun is also a circumvention device and thus Windows would be illegal! There we go!
Though that would also imply that Linux and MacOS would be illegal too...
Ah, thanks. I did get what was going on then, I just wasn't sure why they were temporarily renaming rm during hours when most people probably wouldn't be using the computer, and the lack of motivation led me to believe I was missing something, maybe with the missing slashes.
I can't figure out what's going on here really... like is the missing / before the second bin on each line intentional? What's REALLY-rm? A custom program?
(Replying to you because you may see I've replied if you check your stats page and be able to answer, whereas if I just replied to the AC someone else would have to see while reading through...)
I agree that it would be nice, but that would be too much entanglement in the lives of the developers and companies. Congress shouldn't mandate that companies make it *easy* to copy, just possible.
Sorta like how I feel about DRM. I think that products with it should clearly be labeled as such, and I think it shouldn't be illegal to circumvent it for legal uses, but if companies want to implement it I say more power to them.
You're missing the major premise of my argument, which is that any law change would put the game into the public domain which would, of course, make it legal to duplicate.;-) Like if it actually happened that abandonware was made public domain (I think that's scheduled to happen at about the time Lucifer needs to move to a warmer climate unfortunately), companies wouldn't need to release source because people could duplicate the game.
Your understanding is perfectly fine. For instance, Blizzard took down FreeCraft because it was too close to Warcraft II. (I suspect if you read over the/. posts with that story you'll find the general opinion siding against Blizzard, but I think that Blizzard had a very legitimate claim against them; FreeCraft was very close to a unit-for-unit, image-for-(crummy) image clone of War2.)
I did not think at the time, nor do I now, that was what my parent was referring to; but if so, my statement holds even more.
The way that copyrights and patents promote the arts and sciences is by guranteeing that the author will have a monopoly on distribution and that no one else will run off with all the presumeably expensive (in time and money) R&D that they put in and give nothing back. Thus the inventor/author makes money and can support himself and family, and satisfy luxuries, etc. You don't have brilliant people sitting around not creating because any effort they put in will be taken by others when they are done.
However, the benefit of this after the author's death is tenuous at best. You *could* make the argument that the inventor/author would not creat a work without the knowledge that the family *might* make a probably *extremely small* amount of money after their death, but I don't buy it. Any slight benefit to the arts and sciences gained from people such as this would be far outweighed by the benefits of having works by the authors who that *wouldn't* make a difference for enter the public domain early.
I think that the maximum term that one could reasonably argue provides motivation to create is the life of the author. I think this is a fair term for a copyright to endure for both the indivudial author's benefit and the overall benefit of the fields they work in.
"I can only deduce that Mr. Winer's personal circumstances have changed dramatically, and that is what is causing the problem."
One thought I had was that maybe a DOS attack or something put him significantly over a bandwidth cap. This happened to another site I go to a few monhts ago; they lost several hundred dollars because they didn't have unlimited hosting and went well over their bandwidth cap.
"It would've cost him so much to give people a couple of days to get their shit in order?"
Actually, maybe. I don't know his hosting situation, but if even a quarter of the people had gone to back up their posts, that's a significant amount of extra traffic. Notice would have probably been have to be given out at least a week in advance to avoid a massive rush.
"The staff in a resturant would be engaging in a commercial performance of the song."
This is at least a little questionable, because they don't actually change for the song itself, providing it free of change. It happens infrequently enough that I think it'd be hard to argue that it could be seen as you going to the restaurant for dinner and to listen to a bunch of people sing "Happy Birthday" off key.
"There is not an 'enforcer' in each resturant who prohibits the patrons from singing whatever song they want at their table."
This is true, but because it is not the restaurant's responsibilty to prevent its patrons from infringing on other people's copyrights, not because it isn't copyright infringement. If there was a legal representative of the owner of the Happy Birthday song present in the restaurant at the same time there were patrons singing it, he could very well go up and order them to stop and sue if they didn't (if he could figure out who they were).
Put it this way, is photography more about the style and art of capturing the moment or is it about the moment that is captured?
It depends on what you're talking about. Snapshots are clearly more about the moment, while 'artistic shots' (Ansel Adams's landscapes for instance) are clearly more about the art of capturing. Professional shots such as wedding pictures are somewhere in the middle. I would be happy to see the photographer retain copyright but the subject get unlimited distribution rights. It's a good compromise.
No, it isn't. The Girl Scouts of America were sued (or at least got cease and desist orders) a couple years ago for singing it around campfires. The copyright holders only backed off once they were getting blasted from every direction. This is also why if you go to a restaurant, just about no one sings happy birthday, they are always some cheesy other song.
"IMO this is a different argument and seems to imply that companies should give out source code in addition to mere rights. It would be noble and good, but I think we should take smaller steps:)"
But if it's out of copyright, you could reverse engineer what you have, or write a new version from scratch but based entirely on the original. Then only the people who did that work would have to have the original.
The Athlon XP (at least with some motherboards) will shut off if it gets to hot. I don't think it degrades gracefully, and I don't think I want to find out given the Toms Hardware video of them testing the original Athlon (supposedly part of what scared AMD into putting a thermal diode into their chips), but at least it shouldn't die.
But, at least as far as I can tell, the dev kits consist of more than just software, they have hardware as well. It is also no where near the EULA-style click through licences that we're talking about, you have to sign before they give anything to you, and it's made very clear from the start (unlike with software where they don't tell you it's licenced and not sold at the EULA) that you are only borrowing them.
You are either trolling or a dumbass. Please reread what I'm replying to.
Poster 1: Here's how to turn it off Poster 2: Why is poster 1 informative? It says it in the article Poster 3 (Me): No it doesn't
Now, go reread the article. The closest it comes to saying how to change it is: "And even if it is not enough, one can click one field in the gconf configuration editor and turn Nautilitus into "classical" non-spatial file browser. Don't know how to use gconf? Then you shouldn't change the way Nautilitus works, I presume."
" And the great thing about the spatial Nautilus mode is that it works both spatially *and* navigationally! You can open a folder, scan through the list of folders and files in it, and make a choice based on a known path or set of directions. On the other hand, if you are already familiar with the file, you can navigate to it without so much as reading a single label/name, because all the items are in the same places, each folder opens in the same spot on your desktop, etc. You can remember where to click based on the location of the window and icons therein in relation to each other."
And this is different from Win9x how?
I just went down to verify, and if you check "open each folder in a new window" in the appropriate dialog, Windows 98: a) Opens each folder in a new window b) Remembers the placement of the window on screen c) Remembers the size of the window d) Remembers how the icons are set up
I really don't see how this differs from what Gnome does...
No he doesn't. He tells you that there's one field in GConf that will do it, doesn't say what field, then goes and insults anyone who hasn't had the need to open it before.
Slashdot Mirror
This would actually be great... because it would mean that the option in Windows that turns off autorun is also a circumvention device and thus Windows would be illegal! There we go!
Though that would also imply that Linux and MacOS would be illegal too...
Ah, thanks. I did get what was going on then, I just wasn't sure why they were temporarily renaming rm during hours when most people probably wouldn't be using the computer, and the lack of motivation led me to believe I was missing something, maybe with the missing slashes.
What does it do?
(Replying to you because you may see I've replied if you check your stats page and be able to answer, whereas if I just replied to the AC someone else would have to see while reading through...)
I agree that it would be nice, but that would be too much entanglement in the lives of the developers and companies. Congress shouldn't mandate that companies make it *easy* to copy, just possible.
Sorta like how I feel about DRM. I think that products with it should clearly be labeled as such, and I think it shouldn't be illegal to circumvent it for legal uses, but if companies want to implement it I say more power to them.
"Enacted by that great Democrat, Bill "blowjob" Clinton..." ...but first by the Republican-controlled congress.
You're missing the major premise of my argument, which is that any law change would put the game into the public domain which would, of course, make it legal to duplicate. ;-) Like if it actually happened that abandonware was made public domain (I think that's scheduled to happen at about the time Lucifer needs to move to a warmer climate unfortunately), companies wouldn't need to release source because people could duplicate the game.
/. posts with that story you'll find the general opinion siding against Blizzard, but I think that Blizzard had a very legitimate claim against them; FreeCraft was very close to a unit-for-unit, image-for-(crummy) image clone of War2.)
Your understanding is perfectly fine. For instance, Blizzard took down FreeCraft because it was too close to Warcraft II. (I suspect if you read over the
I did not think at the time, nor do I now, that was what my parent was referring to; but if so, my statement holds even more.
The way that copyrights and patents promote the arts and sciences is by guranteeing that the author will have a monopoly on distribution and that no one else will run off with all the presumeably expensive (in time and money) R&D that they put in and give nothing back. Thus the inventor/author makes money and can support himself and family, and satisfy luxuries, etc. You don't have brilliant people sitting around not creating because any effort they put in will be taken by others when they are done.
However, the benefit of this after the author's death is tenuous at best. You *could* make the argument that the inventor/author would not creat a work without the knowledge that the family *might* make a probably *extremely small* amount of money after their death, but I don't buy it. Any slight benefit to the arts and sciences gained from people such as this would be far outweighed by the benefits of having works by the authors who that *wouldn't* make a difference for enter the public domain early.
I think that the maximum term that one could reasonably argue provides motivation to create is the life of the author. I think this is a fair term for a copyright to endure for both the indivudial author's benefit and the overall benefit of the fields they work in.
"I can only deduce that Mr. Winer's personal circumstances have changed dramatically, and that is what is causing the problem."
One thought I had was that maybe a DOS attack or something put him significantly over a bandwidth cap. This happened to another site I go to a few monhts ago; they lost several hundred dollars because they didn't have unlimited hosting and went well over their bandwidth cap.
The donation thing is a good idea... I hadn't thought of that.
"It would've cost him so much to give people a couple of days to get their shit in order?"
Actually, maybe. I don't know his hosting situation, but if even a quarter of the people had gone to back up their posts, that's a significant amount of extra traffic. Notice would have probably been have to be given out at least a week in advance to avoid a massive rush.
If he was having problems already I'm not sure a mad rush of 3000 people trying to back up their data would have exactly helped...
"The staff in a resturant would be engaging in a commercial performance of the song."
This is at least a little questionable, because they don't actually change for the song itself, providing it free of change. It happens infrequently enough that I think it'd be hard to argue that it could be seen as you going to the restaurant for dinner and to listen to a bunch of people sing "Happy Birthday" off key.
"There is not an 'enforcer' in each resturant who prohibits the patrons from singing whatever song they want at their table."
This is true, but because it is not the restaurant's responsibilty to prevent its patrons from infringing on other people's copyrights, not because it isn't copyright infringement. If there was a legal representative of the owner of the Happy Birthday song present in the restaurant at the same time there were patrons singing it, he could very well go up and order them to stop and sue if they didn't (if he could figure out who they were).
Would it be possible to sue Disney for deceptive advertising practices for cases like this? Has it, or similar cases, been tried?
"The copyright holder can "promote" anytime between the beginning of copyright and it's end."
Under current US law, the copyright holder will have a very difficult time promoting their work for the last 70 years of copyright protection.
Put it this way, is photography more about the style and art of capturing the moment or is it about the moment that is captured?
It depends on what you're talking about. Snapshots are clearly more about the moment, while 'artistic shots' (Ansel Adams's landscapes for instance) are clearly more about the art of capturing. Professional shots such as wedding pictures are somewhere in the middle. I would be happy to see the photographer retain copyright but the subject get unlimited distribution rights. It's a good compromise.
No, it isn't. The Girl Scouts of America were sued (or at least got cease and desist orders) a couple years ago for singing it around campfires. The copyright holders only backed off once they were getting blasted from every direction. This is also why if you go to a restaurant, just about no one sings happy birthday, they are always some cheesy other song.
"IMO this is a different argument and seems to imply that companies should give out source code in addition to mere rights. It would be noble and good, but I think we should take smaller steps :)"
But if it's out of copyright, you could reverse engineer what you have, or write a new version from scratch but based entirely on the original. Then only the people who did that work would have to have the original.
From the Daily Show sometime last week, on the loss of Calgary to Tampa Bay in the NHL cup:
'So the country that invented the sport got beat by a country that doesn't care about it by a team from a state that has no natural ice'
-Louis Black
I agree. The calc section is only comprehensible because I know calc already. And they don't even cover limits, just pick up with differentiation.
I don't even see how to turn what they have into a coherent book; I'd start from scratch sooner than I would build upon what's there.
The Athlon XP (at least with some motherboards) will shut off if it gets to hot. I don't think it degrades gracefully, and I don't think I want to find out given the Toms Hardware video of them testing the original Athlon (supposedly part of what scared AMD into putting a thermal diode into their chips), but at least it shouldn't die.
But, at least as far as I can tell, the dev kits consist of more than just software, they have hardware as well. It is also no where near the EULA-style click through licences that we're talking about, you have to sign before they give anything to you, and it's made very clear from the start (unlike with software where they don't tell you it's licenced and not sold at the EULA) that you are only borrowing them.
You are either trolling or a dumbass. Please reread what I'm replying to.
Poster 1: Here's how to turn it off
Poster 2: Why is poster 1 informative? It says it in the article
Poster 3 (Me): No it doesn't
Now, go reread the article. The closest it comes to saying how to change it is: "And even if it is not enough, one can click one field in the gconf configuration editor and turn Nautilitus into "classical" non-spatial file browser. Don't know how to use gconf? Then you shouldn't change the way Nautilitus works, I presume."
"
And the great thing about the spatial Nautilus mode is that it works both spatially *and* navigationally! You can open a folder, scan through the list of folders and files in it, and make a choice based on a known path or set of directions. On the other hand, if you are already familiar with the file, you can navigate to it without so much as reading a single label/name, because all the items are in the same places, each folder opens in the same spot on your desktop, etc. You can remember where to click based on the location of the window and icons therein in relation to each other."
And this is different from Win9x how?
I just went down to verify, and if you check "open each folder in a new window" in the appropriate dialog, Windows 98:
a) Opens each folder in a new window
b) Remembers the placement of the window on screen
c) Remembers the size of the window
d) Remembers how the icons are set up
I really don't see how this differs from what Gnome does...
No he doesn't. He tells you that there's one field in GConf that will do it, doesn't say what field, then goes and insults anyone who hasn't had the need to open it before.