Pictures fade because you view them again and again, expose to sunlight and other harmful factors. But this is not the case for films. Even films exposed 50 years ago remain in perfect condition if minimal care has been taken of them
Yest, it is much nicer to have an album with pictures. And not every computer can be taken with you when you go to visit a friend and show some pictures.
Digital photo is cool. However the quality of pictures taken by any camera below $1000 (as well as by many more expensive ones) is much much worse than that of a simple traditional camera. And if you want to print digital photos, the difference will be more than clear.
Imagine a writer published a book. It became a bestseller. Then he sells the copyright to someone. The new copyright owner again can, say, publish N more copyes and sell profitably. The case with the article is the same. At least legally there is nothing wrong. And the text of a publicly disseminated article benefits from reader's comments and suggestions until it is ready for publication. Moreover, some people still keep "early editions" of articles on their web-sites. The copyright concerns the text of the articles but not the scientific achievmets. So, it is legal as long as there is no textual coinsidence (in whole or in part).
In such a case, if you borrow a book in the library, why not make a photocopy? Copying the film is the same. Both ussually violates the copyrite. (Some books allow copying.)
But do you go to the pages directly? Or through the inteface of the Wayback Machine?
It is the same as when you distribute a copy of a movie and place your own commecial at the beginning. Of course, there are no commercials that interrupt the movie. But first you watch the beginning of the tape. And only after that you try to skip the commercials and go to the beginning of the movie.
If they place banners on the website, they make money of it. It is essentially the same as selling. Web Machine DOES have banners. Even if a banner says just "Support the Internet Archive. Make a donation" it is a way to make money of someone else's intellectual property.
Selling (even through posting banners) is a special case. But would the copyright owner of a movie be happy, if you record the movie and distribute copies free of charge (say, at a cost of magnetic tape) or encode them in MP2 and place on the Web? While at the same time the same movie is sold in shops?
But I see nothing wrong with taking an article that you published on the web and reproducing it, as long as it is taken in context and is clearly attributed
In fact, there is a special case where this is not a correct approach. It is popular among scientists to distribute their unpublished work over the Web. But as soon as an article is accepted for publication, the copyright is ussualy transfered to the publisher who in turn prohibits the article to be published elsewhere. In this case cashing such articles not only involves legal issus, but also contradicts common practice.
You put it up for people to download, print out and so forth (which amounts to copying), and therefore you've implied that people may do so.
You argument is similar to the following: If program is shown on TV, why someone can't record it and sell copies? Note that copying the content of the website is the same. And showing banner on the website that contains a copy is the same as selling content.
And some website owner explicitely prohibit even printing. See Bloomberg
This prospective is more real than you probably think. Many service-men already have mandatory implanted chips in their teeth for purposes of indentification in case of death.
There should be two devises linked with a short range radioconnection. An ear piece in your tooth acting as a hands-free and a normal phone in the pocket. The dialing is trivial. Anyway, you still cannot fit a phone battary in your tooth! You need more space.
I doubt the phone completely fits into the ear. Probably it works like those hearing devises which for purposes of beauty are split into two parts. A small earpiece fits into the ear comletly redusing visual effect to the minimum. (People on TV use a similar stuff. Small short range radio receiver is completely hidden in the ear. Don't think they pronounce long monologues by heart. Even most of the improvisation in 'live' shows is what the director sais over the radio.) The second piece fits into a pocket and includes a microphone and a radio transmitter.
Analogously, this device may have only a small 'earpiece' installed onto a tooth while a much bigger divice still needs a pocket. However advanced the electronics is, a mobile phone still needs a lot of power to transmit a signal. Look at the bataries of modern mobile phones! At least 50 grams and they still need recharging at least once a week. (Imaging recharging a battary in the tooth.)
Have a look at another article about hazard of mobile phone usage.
This is what industry sais: My advice to people who are worried is that they can always use an earpiece, which can be very convienient in a hands free environment
And this is an opinion of an independent expert: earpieces are enormously adverse, because they conduct radiation directly to the head
Many people I know send more than 100 SMS a month.
Do you want a phone book in you phone? Instead of a paper one in your pocket? It is a PDA feature.
But video in some cases can appear redundant. Imagine a man with a misress when the wife is calling.
Try European stuff! Nokia 9210 is HUGE and plain (although features an electronic notebook). Nokia 8990 is really small and pretty good in it's metal case. And Nokia 8310 looks realy stylish.
People are legally prohibited to speak over mobiles (without hnds-free) while driving. But who will stop the from reading SMS, browsing WAP and what else?
As usual, the technologicall progress is a good deal faster than that in the regulations.
If someone needs only your data, he doesn't have to steal anything. Just to have your hard drive for ten minutes in the hands would be enough. But such an intruder will be painted with the blast himsef, which marks him very clearly. So, even if nothing is going to be physically stolen, this is anyway a good way to protect your data.
Slashdot Mirror
Pictures fade because you view them again and again, expose to sunlight and other harmful factors. But this is not the case for films. Even films exposed 50 years ago remain in perfect condition if minimal care has been taken of them
Yest, it is much nicer to have an album with pictures. And not every computer can be taken with you when you go to visit a friend and show some pictures.
Digital photo is cool. However the quality of pictures taken by any camera below $1000 (as well as by many more expensive ones) is much much worse than that of a simple traditional camera. And if you want to print digital photos, the difference will be more than clear.
Imagine a writer published a book. It became a bestseller. Then he sells the copyright to someone. The new copyright owner again can, say, publish N more copyes and sell profitably. The case with the article is the same. At least legally there is nothing wrong. And the text of a publicly disseminated article benefits from reader's comments and suggestions until it is ready for publication. Moreover, some people still keep "early editions" of articles on their web-sites. The copyright concerns the text of the articles but not the scientific achievmets. So, it is legal as long as there is no textual coinsidence (in whole or in part).
In such a case, if you borrow a book in the library, why not make a photocopy? Copying the film is the same. Both ussually violates the copyrite. (Some books allow copying.)
But do you go to the pages directly? Or through the inteface of the Wayback Machine?
It is the same as when you distribute a copy of a movie and place your own commecial at the beginning. Of course, there are no commercials that interrupt the movie. But first you watch the beginning of the tape. And only after that you try to skip the commercials and go to the beginning of the movie.
If they place banners on the website, they make money of it. It is essentially the same as selling. Web Machine DOES have banners. Even if a banner says just "Support the Internet Archive. Make a donation" it is a way to make money of someone else's intellectual property.
Selling (even through posting banners) is a special case. But would the copyright owner of a movie be happy, if you record the movie and distribute copies free of charge (say, at a cost of magnetic tape) or encode them in MP2 and place on the Web? While at the same time the same movie is sold in shops?
But I see nothing wrong with taking an article that you published on the web and reproducing it, as long as it is taken in context and is clearly attributed
In fact, there is a special case where this is not a correct approach. It is popular among scientists to distribute their unpublished work over the Web. But as soon as an article is accepted for publication, the copyright is ussualy transfered to the publisher who in turn prohibits the article to be published elsewhere. In this case cashing such articles not only involves legal issus, but also contradicts common practice.
You put it up for people to download, print out and so forth (which amounts to copying), and therefore you've implied that people may do so.
You argument is similar to the following:
If program is shown on TV, why someone can't record it and sell copies?
Note that copying the content of the website is the same. And showing banner on the website that contains a copy is the same as selling content.
And some website owner explicitely prohibit even printing. See Bloomberg
This prospective is more real than you probably think. Many service-men already have mandatory implanted chips in their teeth for purposes of indentification in case of death.
There should be two devises linked with a short range radioconnection. An ear piece in your tooth acting as a hands-free and a normal phone in the pocket. The dialing is trivial. Anyway, you still cannot fit a phone battary in your tooth! You need more space.
I doubt the phone completely fits into the ear. Probably it works like those hearing devises which for purposes of beauty are split into two parts. A small earpiece fits into the ear comletly redusing visual effect to the minimum. (People on TV use a similar stuff. Small short range radio receiver is completely hidden in the ear. Don't think they pronounce long monologues by heart. Even most of the improvisation in 'live' shows is what the director sais over the radio.) The second piece fits into a pocket and includes a microphone and a radio transmitter.
Analogously, this device may have only a small 'earpiece' installed onto a tooth while a much bigger divice still needs a pocket. However advanced the electronics is, a mobile phone still needs a lot of power to transmit a signal. Look at the bataries of modern mobile phones! At least 50 grams and they still need recharging at least once a week. (Imaging recharging a battary in the tooth.)
Have a look at another article about hazard of mobile phone usage.
This is what industry sais:
My advice to people who are worried is that they can always use an earpiece, which can be very convienient in a hands free environment
And this is an opinion of an independent expert:
earpieces are enormously adverse, because they conduct radiation directly to the head
Note the difference.
Look at Pluetooth handsfree kits: HBH-20 Headset HBH-30
Many people I know send more than 100 SMS a month. Do you want a phone book in you phone? Instead of a paper one in your pocket? It is a PDA feature. But video in some cases can appear redundant. Imagine a man with a misress when the wife is calling.
Nokia 9210i Nokia 8890 Nokia 8310
Try European stuff! Nokia 9210 is HUGE and plain (although features an electronic notebook). Nokia 8990 is really small and pretty good in it's metal case. And Nokia 8310 looks realy stylish.
The latter is especially important
People are legally prohibited to speak over mobiles (without hnds-free) while driving. But who will stop the from reading SMS, browsing WAP and what else? As usual, the technologicall progress is a good deal faster than that in the regulations.
I think the whole point of posting a story is not actually providing news but inpiring discussion. And this story seem to have pretty scceded.
Then they should adopt the moderation system where the submitted stories are also moderated by the readers like on drop.org
In such cases you need more a still safe as a box rather that an intruder detector.
Some other would keep the data incorrupt even if you hit them with a sledge hummer.
If someone needs only your data, he doesn't have to steal anything. Just to have your hard drive for ten minutes in the hands would be enough. But such an intruder will be painted with the blast himsef, which marks him very clearly. So, even if nothing is going to be physically stolen, this is anyway a good way to protect your data.
Many HP Vectra boxes have the same feature