"In fact, there is extensive research that demonstrates that you can see in higher resolution than should be optically possible. The reason this works is complicated, but basically comes down to the fact that there is an immense amount of inter-cellular interpolation going on."
Another excellent resource discussing the visual system and its interaction with the brain is "The Astonishing Hypothesis" by Francis Crick, who, along with Watson, did a great deal of groundbreaking work on DNA. The book's premise is that thought is simply the result of the interactions of neurons rather than a "soul". Crick explains how the visual system interprets images and the impact this may have on things like AI, neural networks, etc.
The retina is actually one of the more exposed areas of the brain and it is encouraging to see (no pun intended) that science is developing ways to interact with the brain via technology. I am wondering if the things these patients can now see are subject to the same sorts of strangeness that human patients can experience with vision under some of the experimental circumstances described by Crick in his book.
On a final note, this seems similar to the way cochlear implants interact with the ear and brain. Rush Limbaugh, love him or hate him, is probably the most famous person with cochlear implants, and they have undeniably helped him to continue to hear the sound of his own voice.
So we have the genesis of bionic ears and eyes. The input devices are being built (hopefully with good UARTs). The next step may be to work on the interpretive elements. Interesting times, these.
Some Apple users may feel abandoned by this news, but it is obviously not unexpected. I suggest a little grief-counseling for the truly bereaved, but I'd bet that there are a lot of people out there who would actually consider buying a Mac now that wouldn't have dreamed it a year or so ago.
OS X brings Apple into a larger community and out of isolation. It may take some time for all of this to become apparent, but I think it is pretty obvious that everyone involved (Apple evangelists, *nix evangelists) will be better off with this move.
There has been much talk of linux development fragmenting. This is a real risk, but I am seeing a different story taking place that to me is of more lasting importance:
1. Apple has moved toward *nix (albeit not linux) with OS X, essentially being Borged into a free (but somewhat customized) *nix.
2. Sun seems (to me) to be having trouble with Linux eroding its user base.
3. IBM has backed linux in a big way and is reaping big dividends.
4. Linux is being moved into virtually every kind of device imaginable, from PDAs to servers to desktops to embedded systems to routers.
5. Windows servers, while very popular, are becoming harder to rationalize in terms of price/performance and (currently) security (although MS has sworn to change this).
The desktop, in corporate america and in the home, appears to be the last reservation for MS.
Is the current state of (free) *nix really this good or is this a Pollyanna summary? Is winning the desktop battle really that important anymore? Was it ever?
Personal holding companies are targeted at people who seek to incorporate their personal lives (in a nutshell). Someone like Sarah Jessica Parker could conceivably create SJP Inc. and avoid paying payroll taxes to herself on what would otherwise be wages. She could also distribute shares to her friends and family (kids) in an effort to shuffle income off her return (personal holding companies pre-dated the kiddie tax, so at one point the PHC was necessary to prevent this sort of thing).
In any case, it is absolutely clear that MS is not a PHC.
It's not even close to tax evasion. Ta evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance through compliance with the code and regulations is just being smart.
Companies are pretty much free to retain their earnings for reinvestment. There are some limitations on this general rule, but generally it is kosher (there's an old case - Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 (1919))- in which the Dodge brothers sued Henry Ford for, among other things, retaining too much cash and not paying dividends).
There are also a number of tax cases where C corporations (whose dividends are taxable if distributed to shareholders) have been nagged by the IRS to declare dividends. The theory is that the retention of the cash has no real business purpose and it is being done solely for the avoidance of taxes. This is one way the Service can enforce what is called the "business purpose" doctrine.
Microsoft has answered claims such as you raised before, and it is a non-issue now. Especially in today's world of hyper-leveraged balance sheets collapsing, there is no way that Microsoft's war chest will be questioned by the IRS.
"Just as someone who knows the code, line by line, for a program can perform manipulations of that program much easier then someone who has not studied it, lawyers can easily manipulate the law to their effect."
There is a crucial difference. A coder can "perform manipulations" on his own accord and for his own benefit. Behind every attorney is a client. Behind every story you see about some ridiculous lawsuit, there is a client.
Attorneys cannot, sua sponte, file a lawsuit. Lawsuits are filed on behalf of clients. Ergo, attorneys do not "manipulate the law to their [own] benefit." Lawsuits are reflections of disputes that the parties involved find to be worthwhile to litigate.
There are attorneys who engage in egregious behavior. Despite rumors to the contrary, attorneys are human. They are therefore subject to the same weaknesses of character with which all mankind struggles - greed, envy, lust for power, sloth, etc.
The popular perception is that attorneys are worse than the average lot. This is just plain wrong and it is an attitude characteristic of ignorance, plain and simple (not directed at the prior poster, just a general rant against the darkness).
"The professors at the school are taking themselves and their "academic reputation" way to seriously. The only thing this lawsuit will do is get alot of good press for the student."
I'd bet that the professors probably do not care or are supportive in general. I suspect it is the administrative folks and the various deans who have the bug up their collective butt. The deans are almost always more sensitive to criticism of the school in general.
As a follow-up to my prior post, let me return this thread a little to the original point, which is that "Hollywood wants to hack your computer." Let me state unequivocally that I do not believe that destroying technological innovation is an efficient or wise way to enforce legitimate copyrights.
I think that the tech community needs to separate the ideas of copyright and technological restraints imposed by government fiat. The existence and respect of copyright laws does not need to involve restrictions on technological innovations. The two can coexist (and occasionally sparks will fly).
OTOH, I do not believe that content producers are under any obligation to cooperate or look the other way when people take their works without paying and make or distribute perfect, or nearly perfect, copies of those works without compensating the owner of the copyright.
I am not surprised that they are trying to use legislation to protect their property. I think it is misguided and stupid, but I am not surprised and I'm not offended. Small "r" republican government is messy.
"Copyright rights means that the public atributes to a partie the "monopoly" for publish of a content during a certain time as a trade-off for the publishing of the said content."
Yes. Copyright is a public-sanctioned and government-sustained monopoly allowing an entity the sole right to publish content. The copyright monopoly is also an enormous incentive for individuals to create content. This is content which has made all our lives much, much richer and which, I contend, would never have been created without that incentive.
The content production/sales process is also subject to extraordinary competitive market forces which have made content, by and large, available extremely inexpensively. If "Star Wars" had cost $1,000.00 a viewing, it would have failed in the marketplace to competing entertainment alternatives.
Consider also the increase in the diversity and quality of entertainment over a the lifetime of the U.S. copyright framework: What is the value of viewing "Star Wars" at home on your DVD player in surround sound? What would someone have paid for that experience 200 years ago?
"Diferent kinds of content have diferent timetables, but all end with the content become "public domain" when that time ends."
This is an assumption. The original copyright periods were, in the United States, relatively short. They are getting longer and longer. I foresee a day when there may well be unlimited copyright periods that are much like fee simple ownership of real estate. They may be bought and sold with ownership extending indefinitely so long as the copyright is not waived (a form of intellectual property escheat) at which point the property would slide into the public domain.
Like any form of property, copyright exists at the sufferance of government. Just ask China. In the United States, this means (for the non-cynical) that, ultimately, the copyright issue is in the hands of the people.
"Nowadays, the publishers are forfeiting they copyright obligations to the public in three ways:"
You should have included a caveat. Your sentence implies that a statement of fact follows. What actually follows is your extremely radical list of proposed revisions to existing copyright law which, IMHO, would largely destroy the market for expensive and capital-intensive creative enterprises such as "The Clone Wars" for instance.
Your suggestions include: 1. A duty to publish (what about Emily Dickinson - would you have stripped her of any copyright? When is the work finished and when does your duty to publish begin? Star Wars is arguably still unfinished.
2. A duty to publish in a format that you approve of rather than a format in which the owner and/or creator fo the content wants to publish content. Does this mean that George Lucas should have to use non-digital filming? This would potentially destroy innovation in presentation of films and video games.
3. Replacing long-established exceptions to copyright with a much more liberalized scheme which would reduce the ability of the content creator/owner to recoup an investment or to benefit from his/her work.
As I mentioned above, copyright is purely a function of government and your scheme could conceivably be implemented.
I believe that such a scheme would prevent the creation of unknown and magnificent works of art in the future. I have no way to prove this, but I strongly suspect that masterpieces such as Ben-Hur, 2001, Star Wars, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Indiana Jones, and LoTR would never have been created or would not have been executed as well in a world where your vision of copyright was in effect.
As a final note, content creators do not need to constrain themselves to traditional notions of copyright when creating works. RMS, among others, has made common a wonderful and valuable new way to use copyright law to encourage free distribution of intellectual property by practically mandating its free use as opposed to limiting that use.
Content creators who are intellectually opposed to our current forms of managing copyright are free to opt out of the current structure. I think it is notable that most don't and that most consumers of intellectual property are the ones complaining about copyright.
"This has always been the case whilst there are plenty of fans and fan organisations for singers, song writers and musicians has anyone ever heard of a fan club for a major record company?"
Yes. Stockholders. Just because they pay for the privilege of ownership does not make their devotion to their cause any less than one where the support given is intangible appreciation ("love" or "adulation") or financial support in the form of purchasing gee-gaws from an artist.
The fact that it may be possible to have an enormous potential supply of stem cells from this source makes the conservative stand against using embryonic stem cells (which is admittedly creepy) look much more reasonable.
It turns out that science found a way to accomodate a legitimate social concern and to potentially supply necessary raw materials for important scientific/medical research. Those tricky scientists.
Here's hoping it pans out. Then we can have endless human raw materials to hack. It'll be better than Mindstorms.
I work for a law firm that has Word from Office 95, Office 97, Office 2000, and (egad!) WP 5.1 for DOS (!). Lately, we have been ignoring the dinosaurs with WP 5.1 and the file format being used is RTF. It does the job.
I am lobbying for a switch to OO here to avoid all the BS with file incompatibility internally and to keep costs down. I would like to see a "save to PDF" feature in a big way, and once that happens, I think WP and Office will be dead around here.
I also noticed that the Dallas Morning News is not suing Google - they are suing someone very small. Perhaps the thought is to squash an annoying bug (in their eyes) while at the same time possibly setting up an easy target to generate a favorable precedent.
The blindness of the DMN here is insane. They have already lost the interest of the user who is looking to other sources for news, and this guy is sending the user right to the DMN website. Driving traffic to someone's website is suddenly threatening the business model of the DMN's online division? Hunh?
The issue that generates the most of these sorts of complaints (deep-linking) frequently involves the placement of a link on an unrelated webpage in some sort of frame environment. This can cause the article to appear to be coming from the framed deep linker as opposed to the site which developed the content. Ethical linking practices can put resolve/prevent many of the complaints about deep-linking.
Changing gears, I think I may write a song about this - "Deep Link...deeper than deep, your link..."
Slashdot Mirror
"In fact, there is extensive research that demonstrates that you can see in higher resolution than should be optically possible. The reason this works is complicated, but basically comes down to the fact that there is an immense amount of inter-cellular interpolation going on."
Another excellent resource discussing the visual system and its interaction with the brain is "The Astonishing Hypothesis" by Francis Crick, who, along with Watson, did a great deal of groundbreaking work on DNA. The book's premise is that thought is simply the result of the interactions of neurons rather than a "soul". Crick explains how the visual system interprets images and the impact this may have on things like AI, neural networks, etc.
The retina is actually one of the more exposed areas of the brain and it is encouraging to see (no pun intended) that science is developing ways to interact with the brain via technology. I am wondering if the things these patients can now see are subject to the same sorts of strangeness that human patients can experience with vision under some of the experimental circumstances described by Crick in his book.
On a final note, this seems similar to the way cochlear implants interact with the ear and brain. Rush Limbaugh, love him or hate him, is probably the most famous person with cochlear implants, and they have undeniably helped him to continue to hear the sound of his own voice.
So we have the genesis of bionic ears and eyes. The input devices are being built (hopefully with good UARTs). The next step may be to work on the interpretive elements. Interesting times, these.
Guac-foo.
Some Apple users may feel abandoned by this news, but it is obviously not unexpected. I suggest a little grief-counseling for the truly bereaved, but I'd bet that there are a lot of people out there who would actually consider buying a Mac now that wouldn't have dreamed it a year or so ago.
OS X brings Apple into a larger community and out of isolation. It may take some time for all of this to become apparent, but I think it is pretty obvious that everyone involved (Apple evangelists, *nix evangelists) will be better off with this move.
Guac-foo.
AC:
There has been much talk of linux development fragmenting. This is a real risk, but I am seeing a different story taking place that to me is of more lasting importance:
1. Apple has moved toward *nix (albeit not linux) with OS X, essentially being Borged into a free (but somewhat customized) *nix.
2. Sun seems (to me) to be having trouble with Linux eroding its user base.
3. IBM has backed linux in a big way and is reaping big dividends.
4. Linux is being moved into virtually every kind of device imaginable, from PDAs to servers to desktops to embedded systems to routers.
5. Windows servers, while very popular, are becoming harder to rationalize in terms of price/performance and (currently) security (although MS has sworn to change this).
The desktop, in corporate america and in the home, appears to be the last reservation for MS.
Is the current state of (free) *nix really this good or is this a Pollyanna summary? Is winning the desktop battle really that important anymore? Was it ever?
Guac-foo.
Are you screwing over the "American public" by not paying more than you are legally required to pay?
Guac-foo.
Personal holding company _regulations_...
Forgot that part.
Personal holding companies are targeted at people who seek to incorporate their personal lives (in a nutshell). Someone like Sarah Jessica Parker could conceivably create SJP Inc. and avoid paying payroll taxes to herself on what would otherwise be wages. She could also distribute shares to her friends and family (kids) in an effort to shuffle income off her return (personal holding companies pre-dated the kiddie tax, so at one point the PHC was necessary to prevent this sort of thing).
In any case, it is absolutely clear that MS is not a PHC.
Guac-foo.
It's not even close to tax evasion. Ta evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance through compliance with the code and regulations is just being smart.
Companies are pretty much free to retain their earnings for reinvestment. There are some limitations on this general rule, but generally it is kosher (there's an old case - Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 (1919))- in which the Dodge brothers sued Henry Ford for, among other things, retaining too much cash and not paying dividends).
There are also a number of tax cases where C corporations (whose dividends are taxable if distributed to shareholders) have been nagged by the IRS to declare dividends. The theory is that the retention of the cash has no real business purpose and it is being done solely for the avoidance of taxes. This is one way the Service can enforce what is called the "business purpose" doctrine.
Microsoft has answered claims such as you raised before, and it is a non-issue now. Especially in today's world of hyper-leveraged balance sheets collapsing, there is no way that Microsoft's war chest will be questioned by the IRS.
"Just as someone who knows the code, line by line, for a program can perform manipulations of that program much easier then someone who has not studied it, lawyers can easily manipulate the law to their effect."
There is a crucial difference. A coder can "perform manipulations" on his own accord and for his own benefit. Behind every attorney is a client. Behind every story you see about some ridiculous lawsuit, there is a client.
Attorneys cannot, sua sponte, file a lawsuit. Lawsuits are filed on behalf of clients. Ergo, attorneys do not "manipulate the law to their [own] benefit." Lawsuits are reflections of disputes that the parties involved find to be worthwhile to litigate.
There are attorneys who engage in egregious behavior. Despite rumors to the contrary, attorneys are human. They are therefore subject to the same weaknesses of character with which all mankind struggles - greed, envy, lust for power, sloth, etc.
The popular perception is that attorneys are worse than the average lot. This is just plain wrong and it is an attitude characteristic of ignorance, plain and simple (not directed at the prior poster, just a general rant against the darkness).
Guac-foo.
I didn't see open office listed - is this going to be included with the 7.3 standard package?
Guac-foo.
"Lawyers are the biggest abusers of the law, I've noticed."
The above is an example of truly astonishing ignorance (and flame-bait).
Guac-foo.
"The professors at the school are taking themselves and their "academic reputation" way to seriously. The only thing this lawsuit will do is get alot of good press for the student."
I'd bet that the professors probably do not care or are supportive in general. I suspect it is the administrative folks and the various deans who have the bug up their collective butt. The deans are almost always more sensitive to criticism of the school in general.
Guac-foo.
As a follow-up to my prior post, let me return this thread a little to the original point, which is that "Hollywood wants to hack your computer." Let me state unequivocally that I do not believe that destroying technological innovation is an efficient or wise way to enforce legitimate copyrights.
I think that the tech community needs to separate the ideas of copyright and technological restraints imposed by government fiat. The existence and respect of copyright laws does not need to involve restrictions on technological innovations. The two can coexist (and occasionally sparks will fly).
OTOH, I do not believe that content producers are under any obligation to cooperate or look the other way when people take their works without paying and make or distribute perfect, or nearly perfect, copies of those works without compensating the owner of the copyright.
I am not surprised that they are trying to use legislation to protect their property. I think it is misguided and stupid, but I am not surprised and I'm not offended. Small "r" republican government is messy.
Guac-foo.
"Copyright rights means that the public atributes to a partie the "monopoly" for publish of a content during a certain time as a trade-off for the publishing of the said content."
Yes. Copyright is a public-sanctioned and government-sustained monopoly allowing an entity the sole right to publish content. The copyright monopoly is also an enormous incentive for individuals to create content. This is content which has made all our lives much, much richer and which, I contend, would never have been created without that incentive.
The content production/sales process is also subject to extraordinary competitive market forces which have made content, by and large, available extremely inexpensively. If "Star Wars" had cost $1,000.00 a viewing, it would have failed in the marketplace to competing entertainment alternatives.
Consider also the increase in the diversity and quality of entertainment over a the lifetime of the U.S. copyright framework: What is the value of viewing "Star Wars" at home on your DVD player in surround sound? What would someone have paid for that experience 200 years ago?
"Diferent kinds of content have diferent timetables, but all end with the content become "public domain" when that time ends."
This is an assumption. The original copyright periods were, in the United States, relatively short. They are getting longer and longer. I foresee a day when there may well be unlimited copyright periods that are much like fee simple ownership of real estate. They may be bought and sold with ownership extending indefinitely so long as the copyright is not waived (a form of intellectual property escheat) at which point the property would slide into the public domain.
Like any form of property, copyright exists at the sufferance of government. Just ask China. In the United States, this means (for the non-cynical) that, ultimately, the copyright issue is in the hands of the people.
"Nowadays, the publishers are forfeiting they copyright obligations to the public in three ways:"
You should have included a caveat. Your sentence implies that a statement of fact follows. What actually follows is your extremely radical list of proposed revisions to existing copyright law which, IMHO, would largely destroy the market for expensive and capital-intensive creative enterprises such as "The Clone Wars" for instance.
Your suggestions include:
1. A duty to publish (what about Emily Dickinson - would you have stripped her of any copyright? When is the work finished and when does your duty to publish begin? Star Wars is arguably still unfinished.
2. A duty to publish in a format that you approve of rather than a format in which the owner and/or creator fo the content wants to publish content. Does this mean that George Lucas should have to use non-digital filming? This would potentially destroy innovation in presentation of films and video games.
3. Replacing long-established exceptions to copyright with a much more liberalized scheme which would reduce the ability of the content creator/owner to recoup an investment or to benefit from his/her work.
As I mentioned above, copyright is purely a function of government and your scheme could conceivably be implemented.
I believe that such a scheme would prevent the creation of unknown and magnificent works of art in the future. I have no way to prove this, but I strongly suspect that masterpieces such as Ben-Hur, 2001, Star Wars, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Indiana Jones, and LoTR would never have been created or would not have been executed as well in a world where your vision of copyright was in effect.
As a final note, content creators do not need to constrain themselves to traditional notions of copyright when creating works. RMS, among others, has made common a wonderful and valuable new way to use copyright law to encourage free distribution of intellectual property by practically mandating its free use as opposed to limiting that use.
Content creators who are intellectually opposed to our current forms of managing copyright are free to opt out of the current structure. I think it is notable that most don't and that most consumers of intellectual property are the ones complaining about copyright.
Be careful what you wish for.
Guac-foo.
"This has always been the case whilst there are plenty of fans and fan organisations for singers, song writers and musicians has anyone ever heard of a fan club for a major record company?"
Yes. Stockholders. Just because they pay for the privilege of ownership does not make their devotion to their cause any less than one where the support given is intangible appreciation ("love" or "adulation") or financial support in the form of purchasing gee-gaws from an artist.
Guac-foo
The fact that it may be possible to have an enormous potential supply of stem cells from this source makes the conservative stand against using embryonic stem cells (which is admittedly creepy) look much more reasonable.
It turns out that science found a way to accomodate a legitimate social concern and to potentially supply necessary raw materials for important scientific/medical research. Those tricky scientists.
Here's hoping it pans out. Then we can have endless human raw materials to hack. It'll be better than Mindstorms.
Guac-foo.
I work for a law firm that has Word from Office 95, Office 97, Office 2000, and (egad!) WP 5.1 for DOS (!). Lately, we have been ignoring the dinosaurs with WP 5.1 and the file format being used is RTF. It does the job.
I am lobbying for a switch to OO here to avoid all the BS with file incompatibility internally and to keep costs down. I would like to see a "save to PDF" feature in a big way, and once that happens, I think WP and Office will be dead around here.
Guac-foo.
I also noticed that the Dallas Morning News is not suing Google - they are suing someone very small. Perhaps the thought is to squash an annoying bug (in their eyes) while at the same time possibly setting up an easy target to generate a favorable precedent.
The blindness of the DMN here is insane. They have already lost the interest of the user who is looking to other sources for news, and this guy is sending the user right to the DMN website. Driving traffic to someone's website is suddenly threatening the business model of the DMN's online division? Hunh?
Guac-foo
The issue that generates the most of these sorts of complaints (deep-linking) frequently involves the placement of a link on an unrelated webpage in some sort of frame environment. This can cause the article to appear to be coming from the framed deep linker as opposed to the site which developed the content. Ethical linking practices can put resolve/prevent many of the complaints about deep-linking.
Changing gears, I think I may write a song about this - "Deep Link...deeper than deep, your link..."
Guac-foo