I respectfully disagree. I have done a fair amount of programmin but not a web programming. I found setting up Joomla to be a breeze in comparison to what it would have taken to build my own site of similar aesthetic appeal. When it comes to administration of the content, I find it no more difficult than something like MS Sharepoint which is used around my workplace by many non-geeks.
Re:Sigh, I was hoping for a free WM devel platform
on
In-Depth With Qt 4.4
·
· Score: 1
While it may be technically feasible, it may not be practical. It is not quite as trivial as you are making it out to be.
But that is not really answering the question in relation to the article. If you are lecturing, and I am taking notes, in the method of my own choice. Do you own the copyright for my notes? or do I? I agree with the grandparent. If the notes were made by the student, then if copyright belongs to anybody, it is to the student. It is not a strong enough tie to claim "derivative work".
Well, if at Fantasy University, where every professor is coming up with their own textbook and unique presentation of formulas and writes out their entire lecture in their unique presentation format which has to be copied down by the students verbatim in order to pass the test. Then I grant you, he may have a basis for copyright.
But in the real world, where the rest of us went to school, the professor presented his lecture and wrote only the important formulas and facts on the board. The formulas were, of course, verbatim or nearly verbatim from the text book, which he did not write because, like most profs, he does not have the time to write a book for every class that he teaches. In this case, there is no basis for copyright. There is no originality, unique ideas, nor unique or artistic presentations.
Notes have been sold for a long time at universities. It is only a problem now because both the prof and the notes publisher are competing for the same market and the prof wants a monopoly. Like so many people out there, he is in it for the max financial gain.
We are talking about notes here. Nobody is copying anything down verbatim. When I was in school, I almost never wrote a full sentence when taking notes. I also took notes from the text books just like the professors did. There is no difference. If the student notes are considered derived works and protected by copyrights, then so is 99% of the stuff that the professor is presenting.
How are the student notes anymore a derivative work than the professors' lecture notes which are usually derived from a text book? Why is it wrong for the notes company to sell these notes but the schools can make money by selling access to the professors "derived works"?
But wait a second. Do we believe that everything the professor is presenting is derived from his own research and experience. Most of the time, the professors are presenting lectures and notes that are derived from the course text book in the same fashion that the students are deriving their notes from his lecture or texts. The school is selling access to this lecture. They are no better than the people selling the class notes because they are in the exact same business.
It does not matter if he is important or not. It is about protecting everyone's liberties, not just his own. If we are dumb enough to hand anyone this kind of unmoderated power without any checks or balances, then we deserve what is coming to us because you can bet your ass that it will be abused.
Once again, Clinton chose not to vote on this amendment. That does not mean that she was not present. She was able to vote on the immediately preceeding amendments. She backed out of this one because she lacks integrity and backbone.
They broke existing laws that say essentially that they cannot eavesdrop on their customers and they cannot allow anyone else to eavesdrop on their customers without a search warrant. The FCC is supposed to enforce this law. Under President Bush's supervision, they had chosen to ignore these laws.
Actually, she was able to vote on the other amendments to the bill today. She simply chose not to vote on this. If she had voted 'no' on this it would have hurt her in the primary races where an overwhelming number of democrats do not favor immunity for telecoms. But since she is in the pocket of the telecoms, she cannot vote 'yes'.
Exactly, if we could copy food and send it over a phone line, we would not have world hunger. Unless of course we allowed our governments to create artificial restrictions on the distribution of food copies so that farmers could continue to work and get paid for a service which would be completely unnecessary.
I was very curious about this as well. I have been through customs many times with a laptop. They have searched the exterior of my laptop, but they have never asked to look around the filesystem.
You could find a life form that did not have the same proteins that are found in every other organism and considered essential for all life. If you look at the genetic code that is used to transcribe some of the most important proteins you can see how they have mutated gradually from one species to the next, but they still exist in some form in all organisms from humans all the way to yeast.
Look at the first screenshot, the "f" icon on the bottom menu bar is followed by the word "you". I guess the "you" is half of the youtube icon. They need to reorder that menubar.
You are comparing the ratio of Debt of the federal government over the product produced by the entire economy, to our personal debt to income ratio. This is not a good comparison because the governments equivalent to income is the tax dallars that they bring in which I believe is roughly $2.5 trillion The debt right now is roughtly $10 trillion.
Lets not compare to individuals. It is more reasonable to compare the federal gov to a business. So for all the proponents of deficit spending, ecspecially our "republican" politicians, I have a very simple dare: If you can find large publicly traded companies with a debt that is 3 to 4 times their annual revenue, then I dare you to invest your own personal money in those companies. Afterall, if this type of borrowing is a sound fiscal policy as you have suggested, then it should benefit those companies in the long run.
Okay, lets here your excuses for why you will not put you money where your mouth is.
The military is going away from doing this kind of work. Now we pay for contractors to do this kind of work. So before we could at least give stuff back to the general public (GPS), now we allow Contractors to claim proprietary rights to all of the products of the research that we funded.
I always just assume that silence means that they will eventually take a position that is opposite of what is popular with the public. They just want to do it quietly.
Slashdot Mirror
I respectfully disagree. I have done a fair amount of programmin but not a web programming. I found setting up Joomla to be a breeze in comparison to what it would have taken to build my own site of similar aesthetic appeal. When it comes to administration of the content, I find it no more difficult than something like MS Sharepoint which is used around my workplace by many non-geeks.
While it may be technically feasible, it may not be practical. It is not quite as trivial as you are making it out to be.
But that is not really answering the question in relation to the article. If you are lecturing, and I am taking notes, in the method of my own choice. Do you own the copyright for my notes? or do I? I agree with the grandparent. If the notes were made by the student, then if copyright belongs to anybody, it is to the student. It is not a strong enough tie to claim "derivative work".
But in the real world, where the rest of us went to school, the professor presented his lecture and wrote only the important formulas and facts on the board. The formulas were, of course, verbatim or nearly verbatim from the text book, which he did not write because, like most profs, he does not have the time to write a book for every class that he teaches. In this case, there is no basis for copyright. There is no originality, unique ideas, nor unique or artistic presentations.
Notes have been sold for a long time at universities. It is only a problem now because both the prof and the notes publisher are competing for the same market and the prof wants a monopoly. Like so many people out there, he is in it for the max financial gain.
We are talking about notes here. Nobody is copying anything down verbatim. When I was in school, I almost never wrote a full sentence when taking notes. I also took notes from the text books just like the professors did. There is no difference. If the student notes are considered derived works and protected by copyrights, then so is 99% of the stuff that the professor is presenting.
How are the student notes anymore a derivative work than the professors' lecture notes which are usually derived from a text book? Why is it wrong for the notes company to sell these notes but the schools can make money by selling access to the professors "derived works"?
That is because they do not want you to help someone else cheat. They are not claiming it is because you are infringing copyright.
But wait a second. Do we believe that everything the professor is presenting is derived from his own research and experience. Most of the time, the professors are presenting lectures and notes that are derived from the course text book in the same fashion that the students are deriving their notes from his lecture or texts. The school is selling access to this lecture. They are no better than the people selling the class notes because they are in the exact same business.
I bet Nixon wished he had this type of wiretapping ability back in the day. He never would have been caught.
It does not matter if he is important or not. It is about protecting everyone's liberties, not just his own. If we are dumb enough to hand anyone this kind of unmoderated power without any checks or balances, then we deserve what is coming to us because you can bet your ass that it will be abused.
I am pretty sure that the grand parent was using sarcasm. Although I am not 100% sure.
I stand corrected. I was listening to it on C-SPAN and swore that I heard them tally a vote for "Clinton".
Once again, Clinton chose not to vote on this amendment. That does not mean that she was not present. She was able to vote on the immediately preceeding amendments. She backed out of this one because she lacks integrity and backbone.
They broke existing laws that say essentially that they cannot eavesdrop on their customers and they cannot allow anyone else to eavesdrop on their customers without a search warrant. The FCC is supposed to enforce this law. Under President Bush's supervision, they had chosen to ignore these laws.
Clinton simply chose not to vote. She was able to vote on the immediately proceeding amendmendts today.
Actually, she was able to vote on the other amendments to the bill today. She simply chose not to vote on this. If she had voted 'no' on this it would have hurt her in the primary races where an overwhelming number of democrats do not favor immunity for telecoms. But since she is in the pocket of the telecoms, she cannot vote 'yes'.
I want to know how the revenues from the tax are fairly divided up. Does it just go to the big labels? How does it work in Canada with the CD tax?
Exactly, if we could copy food and send it over a phone line, we would not have world hunger. Unless of course we allowed our governments to create artificial restrictions on the distribution of food copies so that farmers could continue to work and get paid for a service which would be completely unnecessary.
I was very curious about this as well. I have been through customs many times with a laptop. They have searched the exterior of my laptop, but they have never asked to look around the filesystem.
You could find a life form that did not have the same proteins that are found in every other organism and considered essential for all life. If you look at the genetic code that is used to transcribe some of the most important proteins you can see how they have mutated gradually from one species to the next, but they still exist in some form in all organisms from humans all the way to yeast.
Look at the first screenshot, the "f" icon on the bottom menu bar is followed by the word "you". I guess the "you" is half of the youtube icon. They need to reorder that menubar.
Lets not compare to individuals. It is more reasonable to compare the federal gov to a business. So for all the proponents of deficit spending, ecspecially our "republican" politicians, I have a very simple dare: If you can find large publicly traded companies with a debt that is 3 to 4 times their annual revenue, then I dare you to invest your own personal money in those companies. Afterall, if this type of borrowing is a sound fiscal policy as you have suggested, then it should benefit those companies in the long run.
Okay, lets here your excuses for why you will not put you money where your mouth is.
The military is going away from doing this kind of work. Now we pay for contractors to do this kind of work. So before we could at least give stuff back to the general public (GPS), now we allow Contractors to claim proprietary rights to all of the products of the research that we funded.
I always just assume that silence means that they will eventually take a position that is opposite of what is popular with the public. They just want to do it quietly.
Qwest had no problem making the right choice.