Science follows a similar ethos. It's the old "standing on the shoulders of giants" idea.
I'm not sure that this example is the same thing. Science builds on the knowledge gained by others, yes. The General Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory is no more copyrightable than other laws of physics; however, a paper written by a physicist is copyrightable as a published work. In that case, a paper that takes ideas from other sources and doesn't cite them is plagarism, but not a violation of copyright.
I'm not describing it well, but your scientific example doesn't seem to fit.
If copyright didn't exist, I see three things happening for software. Firstly, the software support and customization market would boom. Secondly, companies that use software would collaborate to enhance and support software to their needs (e.g. Banks would hire inhouse developers to work on Linux and OpenOffice to ensure that it supports new features that they need). Thirdly, companies that didn't adapt to this new model would go bankrupt and developers would have to either become inhouse developers or consultant developers. Net result, the world goes on.
Ahh, but copyright does exist, and points one and two are in fact happening with free/open source software. The GPL relies on copyright law to ensure that this is possible, as it is copyright law that give the GPL strength. Without it, anybody and everybody could freely violate the GPL, since the copyright holder's terms of distribution (the GPL) cannot be enforced.
(No, I'm not well-versed in the GPL but this seems to be an accurate point--if you're more familiar with the GPL feel free to correct me.)
So while *rational* copyright law is a good compromise that most people (including me) feel comfortable supporting, it's not the only approach that works.
True, and it's rational copyright law that has escaped us and turned into a oneupsmanship contest to see who can beat the other--copyright holders who want to control how their works are distributed/used with an iron fist versus those who don't give two damns about the copyright holder's wishes.
Create a derivative work. Share it with a friend. Shout it from the rooftops. The only copyright I think would be of real value would be to require fair attribution, so that we can reward those who are creative as we see fit (rather than as they think they deserve or can extort).
If I choose to do so with my creative work, that's my choice. At the same time, if I choose to only make a select few copies to sell for a profit, that's also my business. If copyright laws were sane, then after xx amount of years (I like the original 14) then the work becomes public domain.
In this case everybody wins...I get to earn some money thanks to my creative skills, then the work becomes part of the public domain for all to enjoy freely.
This is simply wrong. You aren't looking deep enough. When a work is popular, it is entering the public mind, it becomes the common cultural heritage, it shapes the way people think, it changes their language, their perception of the world, etc. If that work is copyrighted, that essentially means that a corporation has control over a significant part of your mind.
I have to disagree with this. If a work is not copyrighted, then there's a very good chance that it will become even MORE widespread than the copyrighted work, as it can be spread far and wide with little to no inhibitions. Influential on society and copyrighted are mutually exclusive. If anything, the copyrighted work is less influential, as it doesn't get spread as far as the free work.
I disagree. I believe in complete physical property rights -- you make a book, you control the physical book. I will never agree with controlling the thoughts and actions of others (as long as they don't hurt anyone else's PHYSICAL property). I write, but I give my writings away in hopes that I will be hired to speak to people interested in what I write. I've helped bands do the same with their music.
First of all, copyright does NOT control your thoughts and actions. By copyrighting something, I do NOT control you. You are not a slave to my copyright terms; if you don't like them then you can obtain content elsewhere. Believe it or not, the RIAA/MPAA-represented labels and studios are not the only sources of content.
Now, regarding your books and such...
As the copyright holder of that work, that is your choice. You choose to make your money on the speaking engagements that come as a result of your writing.
As the copyright holder on digital photos I take, I choose to sell framed copies at a profit. That's my choice. If you take a copy of my photos and start giving them away, that means that I can't make a profit anymore on my own creations.
To turn it around; in a later post you say that in some of your books you ask for payment after somebody has read it. Now, I copy your book and sell it for a profit. I've hurt your ability to make money on the book, as I've sold it for a profit. (Yes, I'm neglecting the speaking engagements that come from reading it, I'm trying to keep the example an apples-to-apples comparison.)
Payment up front for copies of my photos is my choice. Voluntary payment for copies of your books is your choice. You respect mine, and I'll respedct yours.
Let's take your speaking engagements; I take a transcript of one and publish it. People buy my transcript for a profit to me instead of attending the talk for a profit to you. Going by your anti-copyright position, that's perfectly alright, as you don't care who owns the rights to the work.
It's this situation that I believe copyright is supposed to prevent. I believe that it's the extreme "I'll do what I want with it and screw your rights" that drives DRM development. Because you don't respect my copyright on my photos, I have to take steps to protect them. As I take steps to protect my rights, you take further steps to ignore them...and the snowball grows.
Hmm. So if you memorize one of my poems and want to recite it to a friend, I should have the right to use force to stop you? "Shut up or I'll shoot!"
No.
I agree...that should come under Fair Use (and somebody should tell those creeps that decide to enforce copyright on scout troops that want to sing "Row Row Row Your Boat" around campfires) plus your means of enforcement breaks other laws (manslaughter, murder, etc.)
But what if I don't recite it, rather I print it and sell the printed copy for a profit or recite it to a paying audience?
My ethical rights as a creator are to have that relationship recognized, and to get my cut of any money that someone makes with that work. I think the way songwriter royalties currently work is the closest thing to a a workable "rights" system: you can play my songs all you want, but if you cover them on a CD, or play them and get paid, you owe me a royalty.
It's that compensation for perfornace-for-pay where copyright becomes important. You do in fact own that poem, which is why you can enforce those conditions of use. "Free to use as you wish, as long as you recognize I created it and pay a royalty if you earn income from performances or publication." Perhaps your argument changes "copyright owner" to "copyright holder" but the ideas is the same.
The terms you describe are your choice, just as dada21's terms of distribution (essentially unlimited) are his choice. As the copyright holders of your respective works, those are your conditions to set as you see fit. As the copyright holder on digital photos I take, they may be used by the general public as I see fit because I own them, just as you own your poem and dad21 owns his book and other creative works. Whether I choose to freely release my photos to the general public or sell copies for a profit is my choice. I respect your terms and ask that you respect mine.
It's when that respect of terms is broken that trouble starts.
I'm anti-copyright, so I couldn't care less about who owns what.
I find this position slightly disturbing. Well, more than slightly.
Has copyright law gotten out of hand? When work is copyrighted for the life of the creator plus 75 years, that is excessive. When copyrights keep getting extended and extended to protect works owned by companies, that is excessive.
However, the basic premise behind copyright is sound. If you write a book or compose a symphony, you SHOULD have the exclusive copyright on that work. It's your creation to do with as you see fit, whether it's put it in the public domain right away, lock it in a drawer, perform it in public for a fee, publish it, etc. It is completely up to the copyright holder to decide what happens to the work.
Your attitude, sir, carries a message of disrespect and contempt for copyright holders. Basically you're saying "F*** you and your rights, I'm going to take your creative work and do with it what I damn well please." Fair Use rights, you say? Why should I as a content provider respect your Fair Use rights if you don't respect my copyrights?
While I have no solid facts to back it, my gut tells me that if the content providers' copyrights were respected, then DRM wouldn't come around. DRM R&D costs time and money, and if copyright was on the whole respected, then the costs would outweight the revenues thet it would protect, and as everybody knows, a business won't do something if it doesn't bring a profit.
However, as long as there are enough visible attitudes like yours, DRM development will continue at the expense of Fair Use.
(and yes, I live in a Utopian world where political correctness and DRM isn't needed because people just "get along.")
I haven't read the linked article yet, but I did read a story in the Wisconsin State journal about it...
Apparently the bill still needs to go to the House, as the House originally voted for it to be renewed in it's original form, not an extension. According to that article, because it's different than what the House voted to pass, it has to go up for another vote.
It was also pointed out that the House is scheduled to be in recess until January 31, a month after the original provisions will expire and be off the books--and it's hard to extend something that is already expired (although I wouldn't put anything past this administration--I'll be so glad when W is out of office!)
In my not-so-educated opinion, it would appear that given what little I know, the extension doesn't stand much chance of passing since a recessed House would have to reconvene, debate, and vote on the changes, in less than nine days, during the holiday season.
Given the sensitivity of military data and computer networks, why is there even a way in from the outside?
Not being "in the know" on breaking into computer systems, there is likely something I'm missing. However, if the military networks are carrying data sensitive enough to cause this kind of trouble, why not isolate those systems from the outside world. By that I mean physically isolated, as in zero Internet connections.
To go from site to site, any and all data traffic passes through encryption devices, such as a TACLANE KG-175 (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/security/_work/kg- 175.html). Simply having passwords and firewalls can (and has been) defeated, but if the only physical path from outside in is through an encryption device, I would think that would effectively thwart any attempts to get in.
I guess my question is: if there is no physical connection between a classified network and an unclassified network, how does one break into it?
However, I think there must be communication to and from the satellite - if not from the car then from the police. It can't be expected that every car would possess maps of every city with speed limits for every street. The GPS units would have to occasionally download information about the immediate vicinity.
Nope...GPS is strictly one way, satellite-to-ground. The GPS receiver receives signals from three or more orbiting GPS satellites and calculates position based on the time difference between signals.
GPS devices don't download info about the surrounding area either. Portable GPS units that have roadmaps and provide turn-by-turn directions have that data stored locally. For example, the GPS navigation system in my car has a roadmap of the US and Canada stored on a DVD which provides the turn-by-turn information for MANY areas (not all, but many.)
Here's what I'd think would make htis a much more reasonable idea: -First, if you are going to implement it, incorporate a big emergency override button that turns the system off instantly, no questions asked, and sends a little report to the local authorities that says you hit the button and records how fast, how far, how long you went. You are then required to file an emergency report in the next week or so explaining why you used the button. Assuming the report is reasonable and you don't do it too often, nothing else happens. -Second, incorporate some sort of passing toggle, automatic or manual, which allows you to override the system for short durations but doesn't send any report unless it passes a certain speed or certain duration. This wouldn't require you to toggle a report unless there are indications of abuse.
IMHO, that would be a very UNreasonable, "Big Brother" idea. "Yes, please put a device in my car that actively radios in to the authorities that I was actively speeding." I think you're missing an important point...the device receives GPS data, but doesn't send a darned thing back to anybody.
If the car begins to significantly exceed the speed limit for the road on which it's travelling the system responds by making it harder to depress the gas pedal...
Also note that it doesn't PREVENT the accelerator from being depressed, but just makes it a bit harder. Thus it fits your criteria of not being an impedence in emergencies.
The four principles the United States issues on June 30, 2005, reinforce the continuing U.S. commitment to the Internet's security and stability, including through the historical U.S. role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.
The word "issues" is not a noun (as in "the Monday issue of the newspaper") but a verb ("The supply officer issues equipment to the troops.") The US issued four principles.
It's also interesting to note that the submitter also appears to be the original author of the Register article.
After reading it several times, I would also question its authenticity. While I don't claim to any expertise on how the Internet inner guts work, referring to "the authoritative root zone file" just doesn't sound right. I have nothing to really back that up other than it doesn't pass the smell test.
I didn't allow any of that sort of thing in my house. But not once was there every any sqaubbles over it. That was just the way it was. My kids knew what was acceptable and what was not and there never was a problem in my house. Never once was there any arguments, problems, fights, anything. My kids behaved well and respected my wishes and rules. I was proud of them then and I'm proud of them now. They never even asked if they could buy, play or watch this sort of filth because they simply knew it was not an going to happen under my roof.
Congratulations to you--you have raised your children the way parents should raise their children. You took responsibility for their upbringing.
Why do you have such a big problem with that? I can't belive that people think that an underage child that lives in his parents home has the RIGHT to do any thing he wants, that he has the RIGHT to view any materials, to play any games, to surf anywhere on the internet, that he has the right to do anything he feels like doing and that the parent should have no say so, no right to restrict or deny the activities in their own home..
Nobody, as far as I can tell, has a problem with that. The issue comes up one group of parents tried to tell another group of parents that because "we don't want our children expposed to a particular game/movie/book/etc., you can't expose your children either." Are you raising your children, or are you tring to raise mine using the government as a proxy?
Minors have the right to do all the things that you decribe, only if THE PARENTS grant that right. Until a child reaches the age of majority, it is up to the PARENTS to decide what is and is not allowed. That is a key issue in this sort of debate. Who has the responsibility to raise the child, the State or the parents? It is the responsibility of the PARENTS.
Kids these days are extremely disrespectful of their elders and of the wishes of their parents. They think the parents should just shell out cash on demand for what ever deviant activity that the child feels he wants to indulge in and that the parent should just shut up and stay out of their lives.
And the parents have the RESPONSIBILITY to step up, step INTO their lives, and monitor what their children are doing, who they are hanging out with, and WHAT THEY ARE LEARNING, even when the child objects. The State does not know your child best--YOU do. YOU know when your child is capable of being exposed to certain stimuli (video games, movies, etc.) and understand that it's not real, moral, etc. Movie and video game ratings are a TOOL made available to the parents to let them decide what their children will and will not be exposed to.
Quite frankly, I believe that the the disrespect you speak of is a product of upbringing. If children are taught from the onset to respect not only their elders but everybody, limits are set, and parents are involved in their children's lives, a lot of your concerns are dealt with.
You know, never mind.. Really, I'm talking to people that are incapable of understanding the problems of society because they know nothing but self indulgence and self gratification.
Perhaps there are some that think that way, but don't make the mistake of lumping them with the rational, responsible adults who believe it is the responsibility of the parents, not the government, to raise their children.
Now, I will grant you that it is probably harder now than ever to raise kids with the diverse ways they can be exposed to drugs/sex/violence/etc. and wanting tools to help you make those decisions is certainly a reasonable expectation, hence parental ratings on movies, video games, etc. But those are PARENTAL ratings, to be used by the PARENTS.
Quoting Judge Kennelly from the original article,
"In this country, the state lacks the authority to ban protected speech on the ground that it affects the listener's or observer's thoughts and attitudes," the judge wrote.
With speculation of a ship date for Windows Vista ranging in the second part of 2006, word has surprisingly surfaced that it can be expected much earlier. BusinessWeek has received a copy of the internal blog of Chris Jones, who is a top Windows executive. The blog states that the code for Windows Vista will be completed by August 31, giving Microsoft the opportunity to place Vista on PCs for the 2006 Christmas season.
Last time I looked at a calendar, August 31 was in the second half of 2006. How is this news?
Why is it that the US, one of the most advanced countries in the world cannot get their $#!^ together, pun intended:-) when it comes to plumbing issues that most of the rest of the world seems to have solved years ago?
Because it seems like if it doesn't (a) get somebody re-elected and/or (b) make somebody a profit, it usually won't get done.
During WWII, Winston Churchill put it best. To paraphrase: The Americans, when all other options have been exhausted, will do the right thing.
I read TFA, don't see anyplace in it where the electronic publishing of papers bypasses the review process.
The Royal Society, Britain's national academy of science, yesterday joined the debate about so-called open access to scientific research, warning that making research freely available on the internet as it is published in scientific journals could harm scientific debate.
The review process is not addressed, just availability AFTER formal publication. FOrmal publication still comes after a review process, or at least one presumes so.
The Royal Society, Britain's national academy of science, yesterday joined the debate about so-called open access to scientific research, warning that making research freely available on the internet as it is published in scientific journals could harm scientific debate.
My immediate reaction to this little tidbit was "How obvious can you make a contradiction?" How does open access harm scientific debate? The research papers are there for other researchers to read and discuss--isn't that the idea?
Then when you read more, there is a case made:
The Royal Society fears it could lead to the demise of journals published by not-for-profit societies, which put out about a third of all journals. "Funders should remember that the primary aims should be to improve the exchange of knowledge between researchers and wider society," The Royal Society said.
The RS does bring up a good point in one respect--the printed journals could conceivably lose funding due to the lack subscribers, thus actually making the work less accessible. While access to the Internet is becoming more and more common, it isn't universal and thus works published ONLY in electronic form would be accessible only to those with electronic access. Presumably researchers are in positions and facilities that have such access, but in field sites or less developed countries this may not always be the case.
However, to answer the final question asked: "Why would you pay to subscribe to a journal if the papers appear free of charge?"
Answer: because a printed copy is easier to read as a reference document. Ever try to cut and paste a reference on your computer screen into a actual research notebook?
Yes, electronic copies such as PDFs can be printed, I am well aware of this. It still has a cost associated with it in terms of printing supplies, long-term storage media (CDs, DVDs, paper, etc.) and most important to some scientists--time. Could I go get the electronic copy of the IEEE Antennas and Propagation magazine? Sure, since my university subscribes to the IEEE Xplore electronic depository. Is it easier for me to grab a copy off the bookshelf withing arm's reach? Without a doubt.
Electronic copy makes searching for a particular resource much easier, but if I have the paper copy on the shelf, I don't have to worry about CDs or CD drives going bad, hard drive failures, etc. (Yes, I am aware of the importance of backups, offsite storage, etc.) However, a printed copy isn't concerned with file formats, media formats, etc. Printed words are printed words.
My prediction: electronic records will never completely replace paper. They will be an additional resource, not a replacing resource.
Imagine some big rectangular pieces of some material that doesn't transfer sound (or does it badly) and place them between cubicles. Ideally those pieces should reach from the floor to the ceiling of the room with you cubicle. Now your privacy should be okay.
Those are called "offices." Some time ago, when you got an office job with a large company, you were assigned one of these "offices" to do your work. They even had these other novel things called "doors" which were like small wall sections on hinges that could be swung in and out of the opening used to go into and out of the "office." Imagine, your own space where the walls extended from the floor all the way to the ceiling, and a door to boot! These were popular in times where one also would frequently work for the same company for a long time and get additional perks such as "health care" and this other neat thing called a "pension" where the company continued to pay part of your salary after you worked for them for thirty or so years and stopped working, called "retirement."
By eliminating the internal tally which has zero way of being physically verified, you have eliminated the possibility of irregular electronic totals, such as more votes being totaled up than registered voters, etc. Sure there can still be corrupt election officials etc., but at least one weak link has been removed from the chain.
Paper, paper, paper...like another poster before me, I do my best to use an absentee ballot, so that I know that my vote hasn't gotten lost in the bit-bucket-shuffle.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be surprised if Sony didn't account for this when they designed the protection scheme.
Would this be the same Sony with that superwhamodyne well-thought-out rootkit?
Science follows a similar ethos. It's the old "standing on the shoulders of giants" idea.
I'm not sure that this example is the same thing. Science builds on the knowledge gained by others, yes. The General Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory is no more copyrightable than other laws of physics; however, a paper written by a physicist is copyrightable as a published work. In that case, a paper that takes ideas from other sources and doesn't cite them is plagarism, but not a violation of copyright.
I'm not describing it well, but your scientific example doesn't seem to fit.
If copyright didn't exist, I see three things happening for software. Firstly, the software support and customization market would boom. Secondly, companies that use software would collaborate to enhance and support software to their needs (e.g. Banks would hire inhouse developers to work on Linux and OpenOffice to ensure that it supports new features that they need). Thirdly, companies that didn't adapt to this new model would go bankrupt and developers would have to either become inhouse developers or consultant developers. Net result, the world goes on.
Ahh, but copyright does exist, and points one and two are in fact happening with free/open source software. The GPL relies on copyright law to ensure that this is possible, as it is copyright law that give the GPL strength. Without it, anybody and everybody could freely violate the GPL, since the copyright holder's terms of distribution (the GPL) cannot be enforced.
(No, I'm not well-versed in the GPL but this seems to be an accurate point--if you're more familiar with the GPL feel free to correct me.)
So while *rational* copyright law is a good compromise that most people (including me) feel comfortable supporting, it's not the only approach that works.
True, and it's rational copyright law that has escaped us and turned into a oneupsmanship contest to see who can beat the other--copyright holders who want to control how their works are distributed/used with an iron fist versus those who don't give two damns about the copyright holder's wishes.
Create a derivative work. Share it with a friend. Shout it from the rooftops. The only copyright I think would be of real value would be to require fair attribution, so that we can reward those who are creative as we see fit (rather than as they think they deserve or can extort).
If I choose to do so with my creative work, that's my choice. At the same time, if I choose to only make a select few copies to sell for a profit, that's also my business. If copyright laws were sane, then after xx amount of years (I like the original 14) then the work becomes public domain.
In this case everybody wins...I get to earn some money thanks to my creative skills, then the work becomes part of the public domain for all to enjoy freely.
This is simply wrong. You aren't looking deep enough. When a work is popular, it is entering the public mind, it becomes the common cultural heritage, it shapes the way people think, it changes their language, their perception of the world, etc. If that work is copyrighted, that essentially means that a corporation has control over a significant part of your mind.
I have to disagree with this. If a work is not copyrighted, then there's a very good chance that it will become even MORE widespread than the copyrighted work, as it can be spread far and wide with little to no inhibitions. Influential on society and copyrighted are mutually exclusive. If anything, the copyrighted work is less influential, as it doesn't get spread as far as the free work.
I disagree. I believe in complete physical property rights -- you make a book, you control the physical book. I will never agree with controlling the thoughts and actions of others (as long as they don't hurt anyone else's PHYSICAL property). I write, but I give my writings away in hopes that I will be hired to speak to people interested in what I write. I've helped bands do the same with their music.
First of all, copyright does NOT control your thoughts and actions. By copyrighting something, I do NOT control you. You are not a slave to my copyright terms; if you don't like them then you can obtain content elsewhere. Believe it or not, the RIAA/MPAA-represented labels and studios are not the only sources of content.
Now, regarding your books and such...
As the copyright holder of that work, that is your choice. You choose to make your money on the speaking engagements that come as a result of your writing.
As the copyright holder on digital photos I take, I choose to sell framed copies at a profit. That's my choice. If you take a copy of my photos and start giving them away, that means that I can't make a profit anymore on my own creations.
To turn it around; in a later post you say that in some of your books you ask for payment after somebody has read it. Now, I copy your book and sell it for a profit. I've hurt your ability to make money on the book, as I've sold it for a profit. (Yes, I'm neglecting the speaking engagements that come from reading it, I'm trying to keep the example an apples-to-apples comparison.)
Payment up front for copies of my photos is my choice. Voluntary payment for copies of your books is your choice. You respect mine, and I'll respedct yours.
Let's take your speaking engagements; I take a transcript of one and publish it. People buy my transcript for a profit to me instead of attending the talk for a profit to you. Going by your anti-copyright position, that's perfectly alright, as you don't care who owns the rights to the work.
It's this situation that I believe copyright is supposed to prevent. I believe that it's the extreme "I'll do what I want with it and screw your rights" that drives DRM development. Because you don't respect my copyright on my photos, I have to take steps to protect them. As I take steps to protect my rights, you take further steps to ignore them...and the snowball grows.
Hmm. So if you memorize one of my poems and want to recite it to a friend, I should have the right to use force to stop you? "Shut up or I'll shoot!"
No.
I agree...that should come under Fair Use (and somebody should tell those creeps that decide to enforce copyright on scout troops that want to sing "Row Row Row Your Boat" around campfires) plus your means of enforcement breaks other laws (manslaughter, murder, etc.)
But what if I don't recite it, rather I print it and sell the printed copy for a profit or recite it to a paying audience?
My ethical rights as a creator are to have that relationship recognized, and to get my cut of any money that someone makes with that work. I think the way songwriter royalties currently work is the closest thing to a a workable "rights" system: you can play my songs all you want, but if you cover them on a CD, or play them and get paid, you owe me a royalty.
It's that compensation for perfornace-for-pay where copyright becomes important. You do in fact own that poem, which is why you can enforce those conditions of use. "Free to use as you wish, as long as you recognize I created it and pay a royalty if you earn income from performances or publication." Perhaps your argument changes "copyright owner" to "copyright holder" but the ideas is the same.
The terms you describe are your choice, just as dada21's terms of distribution (essentially unlimited) are his choice. As the copyright holders of your respective works, those are your conditions to set as you see fit. As the copyright holder on digital photos I take, they may be used by the general public as I see fit because I own them, just as you own your poem and dad21 owns his book and other creative works. Whether I choose to freely release my photos to the general public or sell copies for a profit is my choice. I respect your terms and ask that you respect mine.
It's when that respect of terms is broken that trouble starts.
I'm anti-copyright, so I couldn't care less about who owns what.
I find this position slightly disturbing. Well, more than slightly.
Has copyright law gotten out of hand? When work is copyrighted for the life of the creator plus 75 years, that is excessive. When copyrights keep getting extended and extended to protect works owned by companies, that is excessive.
However, the basic premise behind copyright is sound. If you write a book or compose a symphony, you SHOULD have the exclusive copyright on that work. It's your creation to do with as you see fit, whether it's put it in the public domain right away, lock it in a drawer, perform it in public for a fee, publish it, etc. It is completely up to the copyright holder to decide what happens to the work.
Your attitude, sir, carries a message of disrespect and contempt for copyright holders. Basically you're saying "F*** you and your rights, I'm going to take your creative work and do with it what I damn well please." Fair Use rights, you say? Why should I as a content provider respect your Fair Use rights if you don't respect my copyrights?
While I have no solid facts to back it, my gut tells me that if the content providers' copyrights were respected, then DRM wouldn't come around. DRM R&D costs time and money, and if copyright was on the whole respected, then the costs would outweight the revenues thet it would protect, and as everybody knows, a business won't do something if it doesn't bring a profit.
However, as long as there are enough visible attitudes like yours, DRM development will continue at the expense of Fair Use.
(and yes, I live in a Utopian world where political correctness and DRM isn't needed because people just "get along.")
Inside the corporate offices of Microsoft, an angel dies.
You used "Microsoft" and "angel" in the same sentence without the "of Darkness" phrase. You should know better.
OK, I read the link, and the House is meeting today at 4 p.m...so much for not reading the article first.
I haven't read the linked article yet, but I did read a story in the Wisconsin State journal about it...
Apparently the bill still needs to go to the House, as the House originally voted for it to be renewed in it's original form, not an extension. According to that article, because it's different than what the House voted to pass, it has to go up for another vote.
It was also pointed out that the House is scheduled to be in recess until January 31, a month after the original provisions will expire and be off the books--and it's hard to extend something that is already expired (although I wouldn't put anything past this administration--I'll be so glad when W is out of office!)
In my not-so-educated opinion, it would appear that given what little I know, the extension doesn't stand much chance of passing since a recessed House would have to reconvene, debate, and vote on the changes, in less than nine days, during the holiday season.
Given the sensitivity of military data and computer networks, why is there even a way in from the outside?
- 175.html). Simply having passwords and firewalls can (and has been) defeated, but if the only physical path from outside in is through an encryption device, I would think that would effectively thwart any attempts to get in.
Not being "in the know" on breaking into computer systems, there is likely something I'm missing. However, if the military networks are carrying data sensitive enough to cause this kind of trouble, why not isolate those systems from the outside world. By that I mean physically isolated, as in zero Internet connections.
To go from site to site, any and all data traffic passes through encryption devices, such as a TACLANE KG-175 (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/security/_work/kg
I guess my question is: if there is no physical connection between a classified network and an unclassified network, how does one break into it?
While it was doing this, we managed to pour lighter-fluid into the unit, and set it on fire.
And after a good slashdotting, he'll get the same effect sans lighter fluid.
I wonder if they tried Googling for them yet :)
However, I think there must be communication to and from the satellite - if not from the car then from the police. It can't be expected that every car would possess maps of every city with speed limits for every street. The GPS units would have to occasionally download information about the immediate vicinity.
Nope...GPS is strictly one way, satellite-to-ground. The GPS receiver receives signals from three or more orbiting GPS satellites and calculates position based on the time difference between signals.
GPS devices don't download info about the surrounding area either. Portable GPS units that have roadmaps and provide turn-by-turn directions have that data stored locally. For example, the GPS navigation system in my car has a roadmap of the US and Canada stored on a DVD which provides the turn-by-turn information for MANY areas (not all, but many.)
A link to the original article: http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20051128.gtsmartcars28/BNStory/Technology/
Here's what I'd think would make htis a much more reasonable idea:
-First, if you are going to implement it, incorporate a big emergency override button that turns the system off instantly, no questions asked, and sends a little report to the local authorities that says you hit the button and records how fast, how far, how long you went. You are then required to file an emergency report in the next week or so explaining why you used the button. Assuming the report is reasonable and you don't do it too often, nothing else happens.
-Second, incorporate some sort of passing toggle, automatic or manual, which allows you to override the system for short durations but doesn't send any report unless it passes a certain speed or certain duration. This wouldn't require you to toggle a report unless there are indications of abuse.
IMHO, that would be a very UNreasonable, "Big Brother" idea. "Yes, please put a device in my car that actively radios in to the authorities that I was actively speeding." I think you're missing an important point...the device receives GPS data, but doesn't send a darned thing back to anybody.
If the car begins to significantly exceed the speed limit for the road on which it's travelling the system responds by making it harder to depress the gas pedal...
Also note that it doesn't PREVENT the accelerator from being depressed, but just makes it a bit harder. Thus it fits your criteria of not being an impedence in emergencies.
Actually, I think it's supposed to be "issued" (being past tense)
I agree...I noticed that after reading through some of the comments posted while writing my own.
If you read the full sentence...
The four principles the United States issues on June 30, 2005, reinforce the continuing U.S. commitment to the Internet's security and stability, including through the historical U.S. role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.
The word "issues" is not a noun (as in "the Monday issue of the newspaper") but a verb ("The supply officer issues equipment to the troops.") The US issued four principles.
It's also interesting to note that the submitter also appears to be the original author of the Register article.
After reading it several times, I would also question its authenticity. While I don't claim to any expertise on how the Internet inner guts work, referring to "the authoritative root zone file" just doesn't sound right. I have nothing to really back that up other than it doesn't pass the smell test.
I didn't allow any of that sort of thing in my house. But not once was there every any sqaubbles over it. That was just the way it was. My kids knew what was acceptable and what was not and there never was a problem in my house. Never once was there any arguments, problems, fights, anything. My kids behaved well and respected my wishes and rules. I was proud of them then and I'm proud of them now. They never even asked if they could buy, play or watch this sort of filth because they simply knew it was not an going to happen under my roof.
Congratulations to you--you have raised your children the way parents should raise their children. You took responsibility for their upbringing.
Why do you have such a big problem with that? I can't belive that people think that an underage child that lives in his parents home has the RIGHT to do any thing he wants, that he has the RIGHT to view any materials, to play any games, to surf anywhere on the internet, that he has the right to do anything he feels like doing and that the parent should have no say so, no right to restrict or deny the activities in their own home..
Nobody, as far as I can tell, has a problem with that. The issue comes up one group of parents tried to tell another group of parents that because "we don't want our children expposed to a particular game/movie/book/etc., you can't expose your children either." Are you raising your children, or are you tring to raise mine using the government as a proxy?
Minors have the right to do all the things that you decribe, only if THE PARENTS grant that right. Until a child reaches the age of majority, it is up to the PARENTS to decide what is and is not allowed. That is a key issue in this sort of debate. Who has the responsibility to raise the child, the State or the parents? It is the responsibility of the PARENTS.
Kids these days are extremely disrespectful of their elders and of the wishes of their parents. They think the parents should just shell out cash on demand for what ever deviant activity that the child feels he wants to indulge in and that the parent should just shut up and stay out of their lives.
And the parents have the RESPONSIBILITY to step up, step INTO their lives, and monitor what their children are doing, who they are hanging out with, and WHAT THEY ARE LEARNING, even when the child objects. The State does not know your child best--YOU do. YOU know when your child is capable of being exposed to certain stimuli (video games, movies, etc.) and understand that it's not real, moral, etc. Movie and video game ratings are a TOOL made available to the parents to let them decide what their children will and will not be exposed to.
Quite frankly, I believe that the the disrespect you speak of is a product of upbringing. If children are taught from the onset to respect not only their elders but everybody, limits are set, and parents are involved in their children's lives, a lot of your concerns are dealt with.
You know, never mind.. Really, I'm talking to people that are incapable of understanding the problems of society because they know nothing but self indulgence and self gratification.
Perhaps there are some that think that way, but don't make the mistake of lumping them with the rational, responsible adults who believe it is the responsibility of the parents, not the government, to raise their children.
Now, I will grant you that it is probably harder now than ever to raise kids with the diverse ways they can be exposed to drugs/sex/violence/etc. and wanting tools to help you make those decisions is certainly a reasonable expectation, hence parental ratings on movies, video games, etc. But those are PARENTAL ratings, to be used by the PARENTS.
Quoting Judge Kennelly from the original article,
"In this country, the state lacks the authority to ban protected speech on the ground that it affects the listener's or observer's thoughts and attitudes," the judge wrote.
He's right-
With speculation of a ship date for Windows Vista ranging in the second part of 2006, word has surprisingly surfaced that it can be expected much earlier. BusinessWeek has received a copy of the internal blog of Chris Jones, who is a top Windows executive. The blog states that the code for Windows Vista will be completed by August 31, giving Microsoft the opportunity to place Vista on PCs for the 2006 Christmas season.
Last time I looked at a calendar, August 31 was in the second half of 2006. How is this news?
Why is it that the US, one of the most advanced countries in the world cannot get their $#!^ together, pun intended :-) when it comes to plumbing issues that most of the rest of the world seems to have solved years ago?
Because it seems like if it doesn't (a) get somebody re-elected and/or (b) make somebody a profit, it usually won't get done.
During WWII, Winston Churchill put it best. To paraphrase: The Americans, when all other options have been exhausted, will do the right thing.
I read TFA, don't see anyplace in it where the electronic publishing of papers bypasses the review process.
The Royal Society, Britain's national academy of science, yesterday joined the debate about so-called open access to scientific research, warning that making research freely available on the internet as it is published in scientific journals could harm scientific debate.
The review process is not addressed, just availability AFTER formal publication. FOrmal publication still comes after a review process, or at least one presumes so.
The Royal Society, Britain's national academy of science, yesterday joined the debate about so-called open access to scientific research, warning that making research freely available on the internet as it is published in scientific journals could harm scientific debate.
My immediate reaction to this little tidbit was "How obvious can you make a contradiction?" How does open access harm scientific debate? The research papers are there for other researchers to read and discuss--isn't that the idea?
Then when you read more, there is a case made:
The Royal Society fears it could lead to the demise of journals published by not-for-profit societies, which put out about a third of all journals. "Funders should remember that the primary aims should be to improve the exchange of knowledge between researchers and wider society," The Royal Society said.
The RS does bring up a good point in one respect--the printed journals could conceivably lose funding due to the lack subscribers, thus actually making the work less accessible. While access to the Internet is becoming more and more common, it isn't universal and thus works published ONLY in electronic form would be accessible only to those with electronic access. Presumably researchers are in positions and facilities that have such access, but in field sites or less developed countries this may not always be the case.
However, to answer the final question asked: "Why would you pay to subscribe to a journal if the papers appear free of charge?"
Answer: because a printed copy is easier to read as a reference document. Ever try to cut and paste a reference on your computer screen into a actual research notebook?
Yes, electronic copies such as PDFs can be printed, I am well aware of this. It still has a cost associated with it in terms of printing supplies, long-term storage media (CDs, DVDs, paper, etc.) and most important to some scientists--time. Could I go get the electronic copy of the IEEE Antennas and Propagation magazine? Sure, since my university subscribes to the IEEE Xplore electronic depository. Is it easier for me to grab a copy off the bookshelf withing arm's reach? Without a doubt.
Electronic copy makes searching for a particular resource much easier, but if I have the paper copy on the shelf, I don't have to worry about CDs or CD drives going bad, hard drive failures, etc. (Yes, I am aware of the importance of backups, offsite storage, etc.) However, a printed copy isn't concerned with file formats, media formats, etc. Printed words are printed words.
My prediction: electronic records will never completely replace paper. They will be an additional resource, not a replacing resource.
Imagine some big rectangular pieces of some material that doesn't transfer sound (or does it badly) and place them between cubicles. Ideally those pieces should reach from the floor to the ceiling of the room with you cubicle. Now your privacy should be okay.
Those are called "offices." Some time ago, when you got an office job with a large company, you were assigned one of these "offices" to do your work. They even had these other novel things called "doors" which were like small wall sections on hinges that could be swung in and out of the opening used to go into and out of the "office." Imagine, your own space where the walls extended from the floor all the way to the ceiling, and a door to boot! These were popular in times where one also would frequently work for the same company for a long time and get additional perks such as "health care" and this other neat thing called a "pension" where the company continued to pay part of your salary after you worked for them for thirty or so years and stopped working, called "retirement."
(Yes, that is sarcasm you smell)
Agreed, 100%.
By eliminating the internal tally which has zero way of being physically verified, you have eliminated the possibility of irregular electronic totals, such as more votes being totaled up than registered voters, etc. Sure there can still be corrupt election officials etc., but at least one weak link has been removed from the chain.
Paper, paper, paper...like another poster before me, I do my best to use an absentee ballot, so that I know that my vote hasn't gotten lost in the bit-bucket-shuffle.
And I admitted that I wasn't certain of the ship date...it was early and I was too lazy to go research it more. Thanks for the clarification.