Isn't there some diagnostic software you can run to test a cable between two computers?
I guess you may need a special NIC, but even still, its gotta be cheaper than $1200.
I'm sure you can do a loopback on an old machine with a couple of eth cards in. Not sure what software would be good for this. Perhaps you could make some/dev/random blocks at 1G each, md5 them, send them eth0->eth1 and check the md5s?
I'd like to see one minor amendment added (via international convention would be good).
Any rights revert to the performer personally (not a corporation even if it is wholly owned by the performer - i.e. is a tax dodge) after, say, 10 years from being made available to the public. I'd let this harmonise with patent terms at, lets say, 15 years. And make this retroactive.
You might then allow the performer, or next of kin, the right to exploit the work for a further 5 years in exchange for a fee of 50% of the proceeds from that work in the previous year OR release the work into the PD.
Now there'll be no big money supporting extension of rights for years and years as they want things in the PD just as much as the public do (perhaps more) so they can exploit those creative works themselves.
The real problem is that copyright is not an election issue. While most of slashdot readers are convinced that extension of copyright is evil, none are going to make it a big enough issue to force governments to back down.
There is no way it can be as none of the big parties are offering copyright change promises (I'm guessing) in your area.
This is one of the ways in which representative democracy is broken. We could have system of granular voting, I think one of the Scandi-wegian countries has such a system where if a certain small percentage of the population sign a petition then an issue can be brought to a general vote. With a working electronic voting system this would be more tenable.
Currently in the UK I think we can choose if market chosen big business gets all our money (conservative) or if government chosen big business gets all our money (labour).
A pharmaceutical company that pours billions of dollars into research and t[r]ials to finally develop a drug that takes away disease [1] gets a 20 year patent.
An automaker that develops new type of breaks [sic.] that saves peoples lives [2] gets a 20 year patent.
Someone who goes "la la la" into a microphone gets 70 year copyright [3].
Yes, I know that patents and copyright aren't exactly the same but still. The proportions are WAY off here.
Some people need [1] to live. Many people need [2] to improve life expectancy. No one needs [3] (in any scenario that I can think of) though it may be enriching.
I'm in no way an apologist for greater copyright terms - harmonising them with patent terms would be fine by me; though I'd sooner see shorter patent terms too. But your argument here is not compelling IMO.
As others have said, we the people (in a democracy) are giving the creators a monopoly in return for their work. We're being screwed. This regime is not encouraging creativity, it is deleterious to it.
I wonder if you look at some of the Berne convention non-signatories.. Papua New Guinea is one IIRC, do the people avoid making creative contributions to society?
But hey, since you made a ridiculous comparison I'll make one too. With a choice between a knife and a chainsaw to cut vegetables, would you choose the chainsaw even though you kept losing fingers?
Geocities was a progression for me as they later allowed SSI. This moved me over from frame based layout. From there I quickly hopped over to my own domain with PHP and was totally geeked out with include_once()!
I went back to the site and added meta-redirect to forward people to my blog. Must check my server logs and see if anyone comes that way.
[Amended for scope:] The copyright laws of other countries do not apply in any particular country.
An international treaty is always {{fact}} ratified into law in the host country. Laws of other countries may be upheld by a law drafted in the host country but it is the host countries law that is enforcing it.
If someone can contradict this with evidence I'd be fascinated.
The only example I think might exist would be a religious law?
The USA ratified the Berne Convention in 1980-ish IIRC.
I think the test is whether the reproduction is a slavish reproduction or if some technique, some art, is needed in the reproduction.
For example a mere photo of the Mona Lisa wouldn't be a new work. A high definition scan using specially designed hardware that picks up details not otherwise visible could be a protectable work.
No, I don't think that's just.
From the UKIPO website ( http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-original.htm ) 'The term "original" also involves a test of substantiality - literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works will not be original if there has not been sufficient skill and labour expended in their creation. But, sometimes significant investment of resources without significant intellectual input can still count as sufficient skill and labour.'
If your work was created independently (and you're going to need some evidence here I'm afraid) without copying then there is no infringement.
Say I write my own song, but I'm not trying to copy anything. What precautions should I take before I publish to avoid being sued for accidental infringement like George Harrison was?
There is no try there is only do.. or something.
Either you copy someone (perhaps subconsciously) or you don't. The chances of creating a piece of music independently appear to be quite slim and so the court will probably have a high level of presumed guilt towards you. If you had manuscripts showing developments and adaptations of your own original song that might help.
However, in the US I think a work that closely resembles a registered work may infringe automatically without and consideration of balance of probabilities or what have you??
Let's get this straight shall we. Sometimes language use changes.
International borders change sometimes, but that doesn't mean Paris is in Germany.
Yeah just as "begs the question" used to be used in a single sense [which is based on what would now be considered a terrible translation of a Latin phrase], Paris used to be in an enlarged German state (on the basis of occupation). But now, just as Paris' political geography has changed so too has the semantics of the term "begs the question".
Of course, even if the MIDI file was bad on purpose, it was still recognizable as Bohemian Rhapsody. I don't think it was changed enough to avoid being declared infringement if BMI decided to go after it.
It doesn't matter how terrible a rendition it was. If it sounds nothing like it then it can still infringe. It's called copyright infringement for a reason... you infringe the persons legal right to a monopoly if you copy from them. That includes creating a derivative work _iff_ you copy from them. If your work was created independently (and you're going to need some evidence here I'm afraid) without copying then there is no infringement.
At least in automotive applications, it begs the question, is it worth the effort?
Let me assure you that in grammatical application it does nothing of the kind.
It's not entirely clear what your meaning is - I have poor grammar skills (partly due to being taught to communicate rather than be anal about grammar) - I can't see a grammatical error in this sentence. You're probably referring to an oft expressed misunderstanding in the parents semantics.
Either way this seems as good a place as any for a monologue:
Let's get this straight shall we. Sometimes language use changes. Sometimes the same phrase is used to mean different things by different groups of people. The term "begs the question" has 2 meanings. Firstly a tightly defined meaning in the field of logical enquiry - IMO this is the lesser used meaning. Second in the field of ordinary discourse it means "such-and-such question immediately follows from this condition".
As for confusion just call the logical version "presumption" and people will know exactly what you mean.
AC1: You've used BTQ wrongly, you must not understand what it means. If you understood the logical meaning you wouldn't use it in the way you have. AC2: You just presume I don't understand BTQ, which begs the questions, where's your proof.
Do you mean Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Mercy, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem?
It's bad enough using this shorthand without her non-regnal titles.
So you feel that women deserve to be raped and mugged if they make poor decisions?
If I make poor decisions that I know will likely have certain consequences, do I deserve those consequences?
I think the point is that, whilst you may not deserve them, you should expect those consequences. If I drop a brick on my foot I may not deserve a broken foot but I should probably expect one.
Moreover, you shouldn't expect the law to protect you in a situation in which you knowingly failed to protect yourself from expected consequences.
If you hang out with drug-dealing rapists, for example, what do you suppose is the likely outcome?
... no one cares if you take a book from the shelf, sit down in one of the comfortable chairs and read as much of the book as you like.
They may let you, but I bet they also care if you do that rather than buy it.
There is a magical mystical place where they not only don't care if you read the books they spend money on getting you to come in and do that. Not only that but they let you take the book home to read, so long as you bring it back soon, all hail the "library".
Even Labour party in UK have realized that private capital is #1 so have most of the other former left wing parties out there. Nobody #2 is promoting state ownership of industry as was the case all over the Europe just a few decades ago.
#1 What they really care about most, not people, and #2 rich/power-hungry
Linking copyrighted material is LEGAL in Sweden. Hosting copyrighted material for unlawful distribution is illegal.
Is there any [other?] court in the world that has ruled that providing a link to a work is an infringement of copyright? Google is in trouble if this is the case, they provide rather a lot of links to rather a lot of copyright works.
Oh of course, "common carrier" exclusions - if you're a big corporation you can do it but not if you're an SME or a private individual?
Strictly speaking providing a [html anchor] link is probably contributory infringement in the UK. But then making backups of your DVDs is illegal here as is watching a show you recorded from the TV more than once, or with a friend.
You can't send wake on LAN packets across the Internet because the Internet is not a LAN. WOL packets are Ethernet frames, not IP packets. They will not be routed because nothing high enough up the protocol stack to handle routing ever sees them. That said, there's nothing stopping you from having a machine in each LAN segment that is always on and provides a web UI for starting machines by sending a WOL packet.
In summary: you can't initiate WOL over the 'net unless you use a computer.
.. sending multipart SMS multiplies the failure rate for any given message.
I'd have thought it would actually reduce it. The multipart messages surely have some sort of flag to indicate there's another part. This would mean that the upstream transponder could be signalled to resend the message if the additional part is not received. You'd effectively have n chances (for an n-part message) to indicate a message was sent. There would be some increased chance of total loss but greater chance of receipt - the message being resent until it was complete.
But I don't really know that much about SMS to know if it was engineered or just thrown together.
How about Twitter just stops arbitrarily limiting characters. Go by word count, perhaps?
I know some avid twitter users, and the majority of them apparently use the idiotic SMS message system to 'tweet' each other all throughout the day on their phones. Twitter can't abandon the 140-character limit for this reason.
Or they could use a time-window to concatenate tweets. If their send timestamp is within 5 minutes then concatenate them.
Anyone who agrees with me should call their congressperson to protest this policy and call their wireless carrier to block all SMS messages.
Surely you should SMS your congressman?
PS: Congressmen can be male or female or of indeterminate gender they're still called "Congressman"
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't there some diagnostic software you can run to test a cable between two computers?
I guess you may need a special NIC, but even still, its gotta be cheaper than $1200.
I'm sure you can do a loopback on an old machine with a couple of eth cards in. Not sure what software would be good for this. Perhaps you could make some /dev/random blocks at 1G each, md5 them, send them eth0->eth1 and check the md5s?
I'd like to see one minor amendment added (via international convention would be good).
Any rights revert to the performer personally (not a corporation even if it is wholly owned by the performer - i.e. is a tax dodge) after, say, 10 years from being made available to the public. I'd let this harmonise with patent terms at, lets say, 15 years. And make this retroactive.
You might then allow the performer, or next of kin, the right to exploit the work for a further 5 years in exchange for a fee of 50% of the proceeds from that work in the previous year OR release the work into the PD.
Now there'll be no big money supporting extension of rights for years and years as they want things in the PD just as much as the public do (perhaps more) so they can exploit those creative works themselves.
The real problem is that copyright is not an election issue. While most of slashdot readers are convinced that extension of copyright is evil, none are going to make it a big enough issue to force governments to back down.
There is no way it can be as none of the big parties are offering copyright change promises (I'm guessing) in your area.
This is one of the ways in which representative democracy is broken. We could have system of granular voting, I think one of the Scandi-wegian countries has such a system where if a certain small percentage of the population sign a petition then an issue can be brought to a general vote. With a working electronic voting system this would be more tenable.
Currently in the UK I think we can choose if market chosen big business gets all our money (conservative) or if government chosen big business gets all our money (labour).
A pharmaceutical company that pours billions of dollars into research and t[r]ials to finally develop a drug that takes away disease [1] gets a 20 year patent.
An automaker that develops new type of breaks [sic.] that saves peoples lives [2] gets a 20 year patent.
Someone who goes "la la la" into a microphone gets 70 year copyright [3].
Yes, I know that patents and copyright aren't exactly the same but still. The proportions are WAY off here.
Some people need [1] to live. Many people need [2] to improve life expectancy. No one needs [3] (in any scenario that I can think of) though it may be enriching.
I'm in no way an apologist for greater copyright terms - harmonising them with patent terms would be fine by me; though I'd sooner see shorter patent terms too. But your argument here is not compelling IMO.
As others have said, we the people (in a democracy) are giving the creators a monopoly in return for their work. We're being screwed. This regime is not encouraging creativity, it is deleterious to it.
I wonder if you look at some of the Berne convention non-signatories .. Papua New Guinea is one IIRC, do the people avoid making creative contributions to society?
But hey, since you made a ridiculous comparison I'll make one too. With a choice between a knife and a chainsaw to cut vegetables, would you choose the chainsaw even though you kept losing fingers?
Hold this carrot for me a minute will you ...
Geocities was a progression for me as they later allowed SSI. This moved me over from frame based layout. From there I quickly hopped over to my own domain with PHP and was totally geeked out with include_once()!
I went back to the site and added meta-redirect to forward people to my blog. Must check my server logs and see if anyone comes that way.
[Amended for scope:] The copyright laws of other countries do not apply in any particular country.
An international treaty is always {{fact}} ratified into law in the host country. Laws of other countries may be upheld by a law drafted in the host country but it is the host countries law that is enforcing it.
If someone can contradict this with evidence I'd be fascinated.
The only example I think might exist would be a religious law?
The USA ratified the Berne Convention in 1980-ish IIRC.
I think the test is whether the reproduction is a slavish reproduction or if some technique, some art, is needed in the reproduction.
For example a mere photo of the Mona Lisa wouldn't be a new work. A high definition scan using specially designed hardware that picks up details not otherwise visible could be a protectable work.
No, I don't think that's just.
From the UKIPO website ( http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-original.htm )
'The term "original" also involves a test of substantiality - literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works will not be original if there has not been sufficient skill and labour expended in their creation. But, sometimes significant investment of resources without significant intellectual input can still count as sufficient skill and labour.'
How old are you?
Guess the blown vacuum tube? Pong? Space Invaders? Tetris? ...
As a descendant of all these authors I claim my cut of the monies due ...
If your work was created independently (and you're going to need some evidence here I'm afraid) without copying then there is no infringement.
Say I write my own song, but I'm not trying to copy anything. What precautions should I take before I publish to avoid being sued for accidental infringement like George Harrison was?
There is no try there is only do .. or something.
Either you copy someone (perhaps subconsciously) or you don't. The chances of creating a piece of music independently appear to be quite slim and so the court will probably have a high level of presumed guilt towards you. If you had manuscripts showing developments and adaptations of your own original song that might help.
However, in the US I think a work that closely resembles a registered work may infringe automatically without and consideration of balance of probabilities or what have you??
IANAIPL
International borders change sometimes, but that doesn't mean Paris is in Germany.
Yeah just as "begs the question" used to be used in a single sense [which is based on what would now be considered a terrible translation of a Latin phrase], Paris used to be in an enlarged German state (on the basis of occupation). But now, just as Paris' political geography has changed so too has the semantics of the term "begs the question".
That's what you meant, right?
The High Quality Viemo version can be viewed here:
http://www.vimeo.com/1109226
Radiohead were so impressed that hey linked to it from their homepage for a while.
Was that "until their record company bosses noticed it was an unlicensed reproduction and sued their asses"???.
Of course, even if the MIDI file was bad on purpose, it was still recognizable as Bohemian Rhapsody. I don't think it was changed enough to avoid being declared infringement if BMI decided to go after it.
It doesn't matter how terrible a rendition it was. If it sounds nothing like it then it can still infringe. It's called copyright infringement for a reason ... you infringe the persons legal right to a monopoly if you copy from them. That includes creating a derivative work _iff_ you copy from them. If your work was created independently (and you're going to need some evidence here I'm afraid) without copying then there is no infringement.
Let me assure you that in grammatical application it does nothing of the kind.
It's not entirely clear what your meaning is - I have poor grammar skills (partly due to being taught to communicate rather than be anal about grammar) - I can't see a grammatical error in this sentence. You're probably referring to an oft expressed misunderstanding in the parents semantics.
Either way this seems as good a place as any for a monologue:
Let's get this straight shall we. Sometimes language use changes. Sometimes the same phrase is used to mean different things by different groups of people. The term "begs the question" has 2 meanings. Firstly a tightly defined meaning in the field of logical enquiry - IMO this is the lesser used meaning. Second in the field of ordinary discourse it means "such-and-such question immediately follows from this condition".
As for confusion just call the logical version "presumption" and people will know exactly what you mean.
AC1: You've used BTQ wrongly, you must not understand what it means. If you understood the logical meaning you wouldn't use it in the way you have.
AC2: You just presume I don't understand BTQ, which begs the questions, where's your proof.
I hate whitespace filters ... ;0)>
Or the English Queen?
Do you mean Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Mercy, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem?
It's bad enough using this shorthand without her non-regnal titles.
So you feel that women deserve to be raped and mugged if they make poor decisions?
If I make poor decisions that I know will likely have certain consequences, do I deserve those consequences?
I think the point is that, whilst you may not deserve them, you should expect those consequences. If I drop a brick on my foot I may not deserve a broken foot but I should probably expect one.
Moreover, you shouldn't expect the law to protect you in a situation in which you knowingly failed to protect yourself from expected consequences.
If you hang out with drug-dealing rapists, for example, what do you suppose is the likely outcome?
... no one cares if you take a book from the shelf, sit down in one of the comfortable chairs and read as much of the book as you like.
They may let you, but I bet they also care if you do that rather than buy it.
There is a magical mystical place where they not only don't care if you read the books they spend money on getting you to come in and do that. Not only that but they let you take the book home to read, so long as you bring it back soon, all hail the "library".
Even Labour party in UK have realized that private capital is #1 so have most of the other former left wing parties out there. Nobody #2 is promoting state ownership of industry as was the case all over the Europe just a few decades ago.
#1 What they really care about most, not people, and
#2 rich/power-hungry
Linking copyrighted material is LEGAL in Sweden. Hosting copyrighted material for unlawful distribution is illegal.
Is there any [other?] court in the world that has ruled that providing a link to a work is an infringement of copyright? Google is in trouble if this is the case, they provide rather a lot of links to rather a lot of copyright works.
Oh of course, "common carrier" exclusions - if you're a big corporation you can do it but not if you're an SME or a private individual?
Strictly speaking providing a [html anchor] link is probably contributory infringement in the UK. But then making backups of your DVDs is illegal here as is watching a show you recorded from the TV more than once, or with a friend.
You can't send wake on LAN packets across the Internet because the Internet is not a LAN. WOL packets are Ethernet frames, not IP packets. They will not be routed because nothing high enough up the protocol stack to handle routing ever sees them. That said, there's nothing stopping you from having a machine in each LAN segment that is always on and provides a web UI for starting machines by sending a WOL packet.
In summary: you can't initiate WOL over the 'net unless you use a computer.
.. sending multipart SMS multiplies the failure rate for any given message.
I'd have thought it would actually reduce it. The multipart messages surely have some sort of flag to indicate there's another part. This would mean that the upstream transponder could be signalled to resend the message if the additional part is not received. You'd effectively have n chances (for an n-part message) to indicate a message was sent. There would be some increased chance of total loss but greater chance of receipt - the message being resent until it was complete.
But I don't really know that much about SMS to know if it was engineered or just thrown together.
How about Twitter just stops arbitrarily limiting characters. Go by word count, perhaps?
I know some avid twitter users, and the majority of them apparently use the idiotic SMS message system to 'tweet' each other all throughout the day on their phones. Twitter can't abandon the 140-character limit for this reason.
Or they could use a time-window to concatenate tweets. If their send timestamp is within 5 minutes then concatenate them.
Anyone who agrees with me should call their congressperson to protest this policy and call their wireless carrier to block all SMS messages.
Surely you should SMS your congressman?
PS: Congressmen can be male or female or of indeterminate gender they're still called "Congressman"
They want 20bytes for their own header/tail cruft.
Yup spamming is easier with URL obfuscation.