That's still stupid. Anyone should be able to ask for a case to be dismissed at any point in the proceedings. Just because the lawyer and/or defendant hasn't thought of a particular reason by a certain date should still not make that reason inadmissible. Surely what are being judged are the legal arguments themselves, not how fast people can think of them?
Exactly. What kind of dumb legal system allows a rich person to sue a poor person, then half-way through say, "Oops, didn't mean it", without having to cover the costs of the other party?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing (though I'm not sure that supporting rebellions can ever be ethical), I'm just playing Devil's Advocate on the grounds that there seem to be a lot of stories on here that seem to be along the lines of "[insert country] doesn't do things the way the US does, so lets all criticise" when there are a lot of things that need to be fixed in their own back yard first.
For example:-
Britain - Surveillance society (*cough* Echelon *cough*)
Iran - Fixed elections (oh the irony)
France and Germany - Free speech (don't mention the war)
EU - Fines US companies for breaking EU law (oh noes)
I'm British BTW, and getting tired of all the rhetoric and hypocrisy
As an American working in China you should realise that you have forfeit your American rights and are now living under Chinese law. As such the Chinese can block your access to whatever they choose. And, amazingly, they also have the right to block access to services provided by American companies.
This is not news, nor should it be news. China is a sovereign nation and can do as it pleases within its own borders as long as no international laws are broken; and I'm pretty sure that denying access to Google does not fall into that category.
Because it will cost firefox 5 million + to have h.264 included per year....
Only because their corporate headquarters happen to be in a country that recognises software patents. Move the company elsewhere, no license fee. I've said this before and I'll say it again, the problem here is not the codec, it's the American patent system (and that of a couple of other places) that is the problem. Not only do the vast majority of users not care about whether they have the correct license, the vast majority of users don't need to care.
At least have honesty to acknowledge that you misquoted me for the benefit of your own argument. You say there is only a subtle difference between the words "aversion" and "unable", which clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding. Though reading your replies again I suspect you do understand but don't want to admit you had a knee-jerk reaction without fully reading what I wrote.
Back to my point, "Aversion" means that people don't want to act in a certain way whereas "unable" means they can't. If you can't see the massive difference in meaning, in this context in particular, then you are the one who has the problem in that you are reading something that just is not there.
I have a clear conscience as I know that I don't hold racist views. Whether you choose to believe that or not is not something that I can do anything about. Life will go on. This is the Internet after all - a place where anonymous people can accuse other anonymous people of all kinds of things without fear of retribution. I will offer a word of advice for the future, and that's to make sure you have fully understood what someone is saying before accusing them of being racist, especially in real life. You may regret it otherwise.
So according to you [slashdot.org], Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are unable to think for themselves because of the culture of their countries
Stop twisting my words. That's not what I said and you know it. I suggest you re-read what I said carefully again before you make yourself look even more stupid.
Hint : Look up the word "aversion" in a dictionary and compare with your replacement of "unable"
Sorry, making sweeping statements about people based on their ethnicity or color of their skin *is* racist, no matter how you dress it up.
I didn't mention ethnicity or skin colour. I mentioned culture which is a different thing entirely as it is affected by factors related to the geographical location of upbringing, not skin colour or ethnicity.
You're also proving my point quite nicely as your attitude is a perfect demonstration of what happens when point (b) in my above post is true.
Don't be an idiot, there was nothing racist in the original statement. The poster was merely talking about his/her experience with the average quality of coders from different countries. In my experience there is also a difference, this is not because of skin colour, but because of a combination of the local culture and/or the quality of the education.
I also happen to agree with the sentiments of the GP. Personally I find the top coders that I deal with are from Europe (especially Eastern Europe), China, South Africa and Australia. Bottom of the pile is the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) - technically they are fine but culturally there seems to be an aversion to thinking for themselves although I suspect that's the fault of the management culture there and the legacy of the caste system. The next to bottom I find to be American programmers - they tend to be pretty low on the technical scale (my suspicion being that the US education system is not very good) and are terrified of doing anything on their own initiative or anything slightly innovative (which manifests itself as apparent laziness as the common response seems to be to avoid any communication on the subject - not returning e-mails or calls). I have come to the conclusion this is due to a) fear of being sacked due to not having employment rights, b) fear of being sued as the culture is so litigious, c) fear of stepping on someone's patent, causing their employer to have to fork out money and leading back to point (a).
Of course this is anecdotal and only represents what I personally have experienced.
Picking a far less free and encumbered format is not a great start.
You need to change your line of attack. Given that any patents on these codecs are only applicable in the US (and possibly Japan), most of the world really doesn't care about whether they are "encumbered" or not and just wants the best codec for the job (which seems to be H.264 in this case). You need to focus on the broken US patent system, rather than the codec being used as your arguments fall on deaf ears for all but the most ardent FOSS supporters once you get beyond the US border.
Well, specifically in relation to the story, I've had MMS capability on my phone for at least 6 years and 3G for 4 years. How long have these features been available in the US?
I beg to differ. From a traveller's perspective even China is more relaxed than the US. For example, I took a photo of the airport I landed in in China (its a habit of mine) and I took a photo of the airport I landed at in the US. Guess which country I was in where I was surrounded by armed men demanding what the hell I was doing, and guess which country I was in where a policeman offered to take a picture of me standing in front of the airport.
I honestly can't believe that anyone actually thinks that the copyright is on the content of the items. It's pretty obvious that the copyright is on the photographs taken of the items.
Figuring out which way the herd is going and getting there first, completely unencumbered by reality, will make you rich.
Which is why when a journalist writes a story that somehow influences said herd (because as I said they have no individual thought) and then they start bleating like the sheep they are I'm quite prepared to look them in the eye and laugh.
Running the markets like this was always a recipe for disaster and those that have lost their money quite frankly deserve it for not thinking about what they were doing. Even an idiot could see this crisis coming - when people are buying and selling non-existant goods its bound to go horribly wrong when someone says they want to cash in their investments and there's nothing there. If the traders had looked up even once from their piles of money they'd have seen that the whole thing was one enormous Ponzi scheme as well. But no, they were too greedy and too stupid.
Schadenfreude is a wonderful thing, and in this case well deserved.
If a journalist's pronouncements can influence the markets, then the problem lies not with the journalist but with the way the markets work. If the traders are so dumb that they cannot think for themselves and cannot decide what to buy or sell on its own merits rather than hearsay, then they are clearly unfit for the job and should be fired.
Same thing happened in the UK - the BBCs business editor was hauled into parliament to explain his writings, and just like in South Korea the MPs wanted to blame him for causing the trouble in the UK economy.
OK he hasn't been threatened with prison, but its clear from incidents like this the world over that those that run the economy and especially the stock market traders actually have no idea what they are doing. For example the same man can apparently cause bank shares to fall just with his morning report on BBC news.
Possibly you are right. However, I'd always taken this bit to be pretty unambiguous:-
Do I need a Music Licence to play music within the bar area?
Yes, if you use live or recorded background music in the bar
And I suspect most landlords do as well.
Therefore my point remains that given that wording and most landlords believing you need a PRS license, that small venues and live music in pubs is dying. And I still contend that the PRS is contributing to this decline and is acting maliciously in not making it crystal clear that you don't need a license to host non-PRS music. Which of course is what the recording industry wants - it still wants that control.
Do I need a Music Licence to play music within the bar area?
Yes, if you use live or recorded background music in the bar, restaurant, cafe, or on your telephone system, then a Music Licence will be required. There is a relevant section on the review form where this music usage can be declared.
How does PRS for Music distribute the income it collects?
It is a condition of the Music Licence that, when requested, the licensee shall supply details of all musical works publicly performed. This information is needed primarily to assist PRS for Music to distribute royalties to writers and publishers. It also helps to identify performances which contain no PRS for Music controlled works for which no royalty is therefore due.
In other words, you still need the public performance license even if no royalties are due.
I actually believe that people should have a right to make money from their work - even if this is often not the majority view on slashdot.
So do I. However, if I wish to make my music free to listen to, shouldn't I be able to as the copyright holder? At the moment I can't as the PRS will collect royalties on my behalf even though I don't want them to.
You can opt out of collecting your royalties from the PRS. You can't stop the PRS collecting from the broadcaster.
Say I want to perform a set of my music in a pub, no covers, just stuff I wrote. The pub has to have a PRS performance license and has to pay the PRS for my performance even if I'm not registered with them.
It's extortion, and as usual it's the artists who get screwed - the number of places to play is dropping for the small local artist as landlords stop paying the PRS tax.
Slashdot Mirror
That's still stupid. Anyone should be able to ask for a case to be dismissed at any point in the proceedings. Just because the lawyer and/or defendant hasn't thought of a particular reason by a certain date should still not make that reason inadmissible. Surely what are being judged are the legal arguments themselves, not how fast people can think of them?
Exactly. What kind of dumb legal system allows a rich person to sue a poor person, then half-way through say, "Oops, didn't mean it", without having to cover the costs of the other party?
Are you seriously suggesting that no brits are criticizing this?
Not at all. Just that its our business and our problem to sort out.
For example:-
I'm British BTW, and getting tired of all the rhetoric and hypocrisy
Sure, they CAN do as they please. That doesn't mean they're going to make correct/good decisions.
Correct or good decisions for whom? You as an American?
As an American working in China you should realise that you have forfeit your American rights and are now living under Chinese law. As such the Chinese can block your access to whatever they choose. And, amazingly, they also have the right to block access to services provided by American companies.
This is not news, nor should it be news. China is a sovereign nation and can do as it pleases within its own borders as long as no international laws are broken; and I'm pretty sure that denying access to Google does not fall into that category.
Because it will cost firefox 5 million + to have h.264 included per year....
Only because their corporate headquarters happen to be in a country that recognises software patents. Move the company elsewhere, no license fee. I've said this before and I'll say it again, the problem here is not the codec, it's the American patent system (and that of a couple of other places) that is the problem. Not only do the vast majority of users not care about whether they have the correct license, the vast majority of users don't need to care.
At least have honesty to acknowledge that you misquoted me for the benefit of your own argument. You say there is only a subtle difference between the words "aversion" and "unable", which clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding. Though reading your replies again I suspect you do understand but don't want to admit you had a knee-jerk reaction without fully reading what I wrote.
Back to my point, "Aversion" means that people don't want to act in a certain way whereas "unable" means they can't. If you can't see the massive difference in meaning, in this context in particular, then you are the one who has the problem in that you are reading something that just is not there.
I have a clear conscience as I know that I don't hold racist views. Whether you choose to believe that or not is not something that I can do anything about. Life will go on. This is the Internet after all - a place where anonymous people can accuse other anonymous people of all kinds of things without fear of retribution. I will offer a word of advice for the future, and that's to make sure you have fully understood what someone is saying before accusing them of being racist, especially in real life. You may regret it otherwise.
So according to you [slashdot.org], Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are unable to think for themselves because of the culture of their countries
Stop twisting my words. That's not what I said and you know it. I suggest you re-read what I said carefully again before you make yourself look even more stupid.
Hint : Look up the word "aversion" in a dictionary and compare with your replacement of "unable"
Sorry, making sweeping statements about people based on their ethnicity or color of their skin *is* racist, no matter how you dress it up.
I didn't mention ethnicity or skin colour. I mentioned culture which is a different thing entirely as it is affected by factors related to the geographical location of upbringing, not skin colour or ethnicity.
You're also proving my point quite nicely as your attitude is a perfect demonstration of what happens when point (b) in my above post is true.
Don't be an idiot, there was nothing racist in the original statement. The poster was merely talking about his/her experience with the average quality of coders from different countries. In my experience there is also a difference, this is not because of skin colour, but because of a combination of the local culture and/or the quality of the education.
I also happen to agree with the sentiments of the GP. Personally I find the top coders that I deal with are from Europe (especially Eastern Europe), China, South Africa and Australia. Bottom of the pile is the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) - technically they are fine but culturally there seems to be an aversion to thinking for themselves although I suspect that's the fault of the management culture there and the legacy of the caste system. The next to bottom I find to be American programmers - they tend to be pretty low on the technical scale (my suspicion being that the US education system is not very good) and are terrified of doing anything on their own initiative or anything slightly innovative (which manifests itself as apparent laziness as the common response seems to be to avoid any communication on the subject - not returning e-mails or calls). I have come to the conclusion this is due to a) fear of being sacked due to not having employment rights, b) fear of being sued as the culture is so litigious, c) fear of stepping on someone's patent, causing their employer to have to fork out money and leading back to point (a).
Of course this is anecdotal and only represents what I personally have experienced.
Picking a far less free and encumbered format is not a great start.
You need to change your line of attack. Given that any patents on these codecs are only applicable in the US (and possibly Japan), most of the world really doesn't care about whether they are "encumbered" or not and just wants the best codec for the job (which seems to be H.264 in this case). You need to focus on the broken US patent system, rather than the codec being used as your arguments fall on deaf ears for all but the most ardent FOSS supporters once you get beyond the US border.
Given that the patent for the codec is only valid in the US and Japan, I'd say the people affected are in a minority, yes.
Well, specifically in relation to the story, I've had MMS capability on my phone for at least 6 years and 3G for 4 years. How long have these features been available in the US?
First, we are still better than most nations
I beg to differ. From a traveller's perspective even China is more relaxed than the US. For example, I took a photo of the airport I landed in in China (its a habit of mine) and I took a photo of the airport I landed at in the US. Guess which country I was in where I was surrounded by armed men demanding what the hell I was doing, and guess which country I was in where a policeman offered to take a picture of me standing in front of the airport.
I honestly can't believe that anyone actually thinks that the copyright is on the content of the items. It's pretty obvious that the copyright is on the photographs taken of the items.
Except they've lost it all so they obviously weren't that good were they? It was all an illusion based on illusory money.
Figuring out which way the herd is going and getting there first, completely unencumbered by reality, will make you rich.
Which is why when a journalist writes a story that somehow influences said herd (because as I said they have no individual thought) and then they start bleating like the sheep they are I'm quite prepared to look them in the eye and laugh.
Running the markets like this was always a recipe for disaster and those that have lost their money quite frankly deserve it for not thinking about what they were doing. Even an idiot could see this crisis coming - when people are buying and selling non-existant goods its bound to go horribly wrong when someone says they want to cash in their investments and there's nothing there. If the traders had looked up even once from their piles of money they'd have seen that the whole thing was one enormous Ponzi scheme as well. But no, they were too greedy and too stupid.
Schadenfreude is a wonderful thing, and in this case well deserved.
If a journalist's pronouncements can influence the markets, then the problem lies not with the journalist but with the way the markets work. If the traders are so dumb that they cannot think for themselves and cannot decide what to buy or sell on its own merits rather than hearsay, then they are clearly unfit for the job and should be fired.
Same thing happened in the UK - the BBCs business editor was hauled into parliament to explain his writings, and just like in South Korea the MPs wanted to blame him for causing the trouble in the UK economy.
OK he hasn't been threatened with prison, but its clear from incidents like this the world over that those that run the economy and especially the stock market traders actually have no idea what they are doing. For example the same man can apparently cause bank shares to fall just with his morning report on BBC news.
I'm from the UK, so I use - of course - British English.
There is no such thing as "British English". There is either English, or any other variant of - American English, Australian English etc.
Possibly you are right. However, I'd always taken this bit to be pretty unambiguous:-
Do I need a Music Licence to play music within the bar area?
Yes, if you use live or recorded background music in the bar
And I suspect most landlords do as well.
Therefore my point remains that given that wording and most landlords believing you need a PRS license, that small venues and live music in pubs is dying. And I still contend that the PRS is contributing to this decline and is acting maliciously in not making it crystal clear that you don't need a license to host non-PRS music. Which of course is what the recording industry wants - it still wants that control.
Wrong. From here
Do I need a Music Licence to play music within the bar area?
Yes, if you use live or recorded background music in the bar, restaurant, cafe, or on your telephone system, then a Music Licence will be required. There is a relevant section on the review form where this music usage can be declared.
How does PRS for Music distribute the income it collects?
It is a condition of the Music Licence that, when requested, the licensee shall supply details of all musical works publicly performed. This information is needed primarily to assist PRS for Music to distribute royalties to writers and publishers. It also helps to identify performances which contain no PRS for Music controlled works for which no royalty is therefore due.
In other words, you still need the public performance license even if no royalties are due.
I actually believe that people should have a right to make money from their work - even if this is often not the majority view on slashdot.
So do I. However, if I wish to make my music free to listen to, shouldn't I be able to as the copyright holder? At the moment I can't as the PRS will collect royalties on my behalf even though I don't want them to.
You can opt out of collecting your royalties from the PRS. You can't stop the PRS collecting from the broadcaster.
Say I want to perform a set of my music in a pub, no covers, just stuff I wrote. The pub has to have a PRS performance license and has to pay the PRS for my performance even if I'm not registered with them.
It's extortion, and as usual it's the artists who get screwed - the number of places to play is dropping for the small local artist as landlords stop paying the PRS tax.