Well as you totally grokked it can you tell me - shouldn't the canonical link be placed in the rel attribute?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.3.1 says that rel is for forward links and rev is for reverse links. Canonical is a forward link as it says the primary location of the information at this onward link is where the current information is derived from. A canonical page wouldn't link out to the duplicate non-canonical copy - though if it did then that would mean the non-canonical page could have a rev="canonical" attribute in a link there.
I mean, if its not actually intrinsically harder [upper management work] (and it largely isn't), than supply and demand pressures should put massive downward price pressure on 'vastly more valuable work', as everyone [peons] would be stopping harder less valuable work to do this easier and 'vastly more valuable work'.
God, you're an idiot.
Look in the mirror.
Erm? A few quick points.
1. CEOs won't devalue their position by flattening the pay system.
2. If everyone were to be given a management position then there would be no people to manage.
3. Just because not everyone is able as a manager doesn't mean that that position is harder. Most managers would be rubbish as workers (if you believe in the Dilbert principle then that's how they got there).
I'm for flat pay schemes. If you do an hours work you get paid an hours wage (that doesn't mean you can slack off). The person who cleans the loo has committed an hour of their life to their job just as much as the CEO has (if it's not the same person!) - the company needs both people. Yes, apply your capitalist ideas and realise that you can cut the peons wage to the root because you can find a million other people to clean the loo - you can pay them less and greed is a strong motivator. That doesn't mean you should pay them less.
I tried it.. I never knew Slashdot could be so awesome. Digg's version works best IMO.
I also found my computer has an Easter egg, you press this large round area in the front fascia and the screen turns into a mirror. Not the best mirror but it's still an awesome hidden feature.
I'd prepared a very humorous, insightful and engaging response and my browser arsed up on me.. so this'll have to do.
"Capitalism is about people with capital having the most influence."
Not quite. I think the word you are looking for is actually "plutocracy". One could say that the latter logically follows from the former*, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
Plutocracy is a dominant twist within our society which has a largely capitalist fabric but does not (as you go on to say) reflect a true capitalism. Just as no truly communist society has emerged. Western society is as capitalist (with it's social welfare and bailouts, etc.) as Soviet Russia was communist.
"Nor is capitalism about those who are the most productive. It is about those with the most capital, or other source of power, increasing their capital. Sure a by-product can be increased financial efficiency in production within a given company but overall I think it's bad for society."
What? Capital is gained precisely by increasing production and decreasing cost. Your statement of how capitalism works is completely wrong on its face.
I was looking at an individual level. If you have a lot of money, you may have been productive to get it, you may not. But once you have that wealth you can sit on your arse and let other peoples demand for your money generate more wealth for you. A capitalist plutocrat doesn't need to work, his money "works" for him increasing his power as it does so such that he can order society to keep himself in his position.
What concerns me most about capitalism is that the scarcity value of people is low. In a truly capitalist society you work people to death because they're plentiful and as one of the plutocrats you can force people to generate wealth (by their productivity, not yours) for you simply because of their demand for life sustaining resources (food, healthcare, clean water, shelter). Consider Dubai as an example (http://digg.com/d1oA2o; an excellent article in The Independent).
No I accept that I ignorantly imagine investors care about a companies actions rather than assuming the stock market falls and rises on the random whim of hot-heads flaunting other peoples money.
Contrast that with how capitalism should work - people who are most productive accumulate resources that expands their influence.
Capitalism is about people with capital having the most influence. @aurispector, they may also choose to expand productivity to develop that influence but that's not necessarily the case. Consider OPEC, often they can increase their influence by lowering production of a high demand product.
Nor is capitalism about those who are the most productive. It is about those with the most capital, or other source of power, increasing their capital. Sure a by-product can be increased financial efficiency in production within a given company but overall I think it's bad for society.
Don't the torrent networks disallow MPAA use? That would mean on connection that the MPAA is in breach of contract, they're not law enforcement agents and presumably don't have a warrant of the court??
Which bit of the patent, could you at least mention the number of the patent you mean?
All patents include an abstract (in the UK this is often amended by the Patent Examiner as it's a searching tool not a strict part of the patent) and the body of the patent often includes extremely broad preamble.
The claims, as granted, are the vital part for interpretation of the scope of the monopoly - if you haven't got the granted claims you've no idea of the generality or otherwise of the protected "invention".
[...] but at least it'll make the lawyers' job of convincing the rest of the company that swpats are a good thing a bit harder, with the ship sinking from the weight of all the unproductive lawsuits.)
Did you notice that bit at the end of the article (I know, I know!) MS's market value increased by $4 billion in response to the news. I don't think it's going to hurt anyone at MS. Nope, don't know how that works.
Blizzard imo. This judge is a moron who set very bad precedent - and now that they have precedent they can sue any company that uses this kind of registration. I see Adobe in the newspaper in the near future.
If the pursuant has a valid patent the judge hardly has a choice now does he.
"Well I find that Microsoft infringed your patent and so this court should award damages in due course.. but I'm not big on capitalism so I'm going to single-handedly overthrow the capitalist system in the USA and find in favour of the defendant, no award of costs.!" [gavel strikes the desk...]
What I don't get is this (from the article):
Shares of Microsoft gained 43 cents, or 2.3 percent, to close at $19.19.
According to tradingmarkets.com their market capitalisation is $174 billion, so their value increased $4 billion from the news that they were fined 388 billion for tortuous infringement??? Wtf? That'll teach 'em!
If any further evidence were needed that capitalism is contrary to good order then I think this is at least a good part of it.
Really? how many tax dollars do you think were spent? Some guy probably had the movie on his computer and they just put it on repeat. Don't be a drama queen. Like you've never goofed off for 10 minutes on your employer's time, which is all the time it would take. These are people too.
I doubt they'll sue, that could get dirty real fast. Both companies have what they want - a news story that says to people that if they download movies they're going to get their asses kicked. Shame for the guy in the middle of it.
Wouldn't you have a case against the bank for fraudulently misrepresenting your balance. If they tell you they're holding X credit for you _and_ assure you it's right...
If on the other hand they're prepared to accept that they make mistakes and say "subject to verification" or the cashier says "can you confirm these transactions" then they're clear and the onus is on you.
No, I don't really think the law would be waited in favour bank customers and against banks lying that they always get it right.
I would think it would be an open invitation for bank fraud.
SirWired
Or you could consider it motivation for teh banks to be careful with other peoples money;0)>
I go along with you except for the case in which you've asked if the funds are genuinely available for withdrawal. The teller acts as an agent of the bank and so speaks with the authority of the bank (or gives a disclaimer that they can't which in this hypothetical scenario they haven't). In that case the bank has endorsed the money as yours - they have made a grave error which will cost them double as they'll have to fix the error made by not properly crediting the money to someone else's account too.
Perhaps a wealthy anonymous benefactor likes the cut of your jib?
Isn't this just one of the risks of running a bank?
The fact that they talk about it SHOWS that they are not independent. And that was for a pretty minor item. You can imagine how much power Murdoch has over the world.
Here in the UK the BBC bought and used a botnet to crack unknown peoples machines and modify their data. They also used the machines to make a DDoS attack against a known machine and to mass spam accounts on private company servers (Hotmail, Gmail) without [it appears] the foreknowledge of those companies.
There's umpteen counts of illegal activity right there that any cracker could serve years inside for.
This was publicly broadcast on BBC in the UK and distributed across the internet via iPlayer and in clips. Action against the "reporters"? None.
Conclusion? In the UK the law only applies to poor shmucks without media connections.
As copyright is a tort it will be interesting to see if the rights owners sue.
These people, intentionally or not, want to destroy this.
Close. These people, being the people in power, want to control it, not destroy it.
Murdoch, if he weren't so short-sighted, would have promoted the reporter for fueling the buzz
Yeah because firing the guy didn't get any column inches (that all mention that the copyright-infringer thought the film might be the best of the year)... oh wait...
Since a RAW image is not even an image, but just a memory dump of a CMOS or CCD, you'd have to know the specifics of that exact chip in order to edit it, and the only people who know that usually are the manufacturers of said chip.
So, "I've got the RAWs, what do you have, JPEGs?"
There are many programs to convert RAW images to standard formats, RAW formats are not secrets and are not specific to the exact chip but may be specific to a range of sensors.
I was talking to someone who showed me their "original web site, created by a local graphics art firm." I immediately recognized several images as stock photos, and the layout looked like a template. A few days later while doing unrelated work, I found the template on templatemonster.com. Ahhh, it was a template, that the local firm populated with their specific details (we do.. our number is.. email us at..).
Just on this point. It was "an original web site", perhaps it used a template but you said yourself that they'd altered stuff in it. Cheap web firms buy (or acquire for free) templates and use them on clients sites. There's probably some minor deception but no more than is common in business advertising.
Now if they claimed they create the individual graphic elements and didn't use a template.. possibly they're still telling the truth, some firms make templates too.
As long as the firm didn't use the template in an infringing way then your friend probably shouldn't care less if they got a cheap website - the guys they thought were the designers aren't but does that matter to them (again providing the template wasn't released with an attribution license).
Sure this wasn't just sour grapes?
They insisted that it was all original work, even though it was easy to see otherwise.
IANAL but AFAICT It doesn't really work that way. First you go after the guy who actually committed the violations. THEN you go after the people who paid him
No. Copyright is a strict liability issue, even if the stock photo agency did not know they are still liable but with lower damages.
... which they should be able to recover based on their contract with their client. If their contract is worth the bits it's written with then it says wirthwhile things about submitting your own work and accepting liability at law and of costs for any submissions which are not your own (possibly even an allowance for the company to decide this without needing a court decision?).
It does sound a bit like the company is libeling/slandering the original artist though.
I think the way courts decide copyright ownership is based upon someone providing the earliest proof of publication
Copyright is about copying, that may sound a truism but in this jurisdiction (UK) it is actually important YMMV elsewhere (not feeling like reading Berne again to be sure).
So in order to show copyright infringement you have to show copying. With photos it's not hard to infer that an identical image is a copy, this will more than likely be assumed, but it's still an important point.
Gaining a legally certain date is like defensive publication for patents - in the UK the patent registration fee was zero briefly... that would mean you could get an government backed official date for something by making it part of a patent application, you could send anything in it always got a date stamp when it entered the Patent Office. Not sure if anyone ever used it this way but you could simply look for the cheapest government office that accepts general freeform submissions (maybe company memoranda, submit as part of your tax return) and then include your contact sheets of images as part of the submission.
In Tetris it's the fitting together of tetrominoes.
I doubt it is. It's something more like lego, jigsaws or wooden building blocks. Yes I just looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetromino and thought "hey Tetris blocks".
I'm getting old, 30s, so may have come across tetrominoes before I played tetris (and not remembered) but are they as widespread as tetris is? Tetris was based on them originally but the ease of gameplay and popularity isn't, I posit, based on previous familiarity with tetrominoes.
Slashdot Mirror
Well as you totally grokked it can you tell me - shouldn't the canonical link be placed in the rel attribute?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.3.1 says that rel is for forward links and rev is for reverse links. Canonical is a forward link as it says the primary location of the information at this onward link is where the current information is derived from. A canonical page wouldn't link out to the duplicate non-canonical copy - though if it did then that would mean the non-canonical page could have a rev="canonical" attribute in a link there.
See eg Matt Cutts post from Google, http://google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=139394&topic=15262 .
Strangely rel="canonical" gives far less hits on Google than rev="canonical" which strongly suggests I'm wrong. In which case I don't get it all.
But I'm confident, so I'll stick my neck out and say canonical only fits in the rel attribute of a head link element.
I mean, if its not actually intrinsically harder [upper management work] (and it largely isn't), than supply and demand pressures should put massive downward price pressure on 'vastly more valuable work', as everyone [peons] would be stopping harder less valuable work to do this easier and 'vastly more valuable work'.
God, you're an idiot.
Look in the mirror.
Erm? A few quick points.
1. CEOs won't devalue their position by flattening the pay system.
2. If everyone were to be given a management position then there would be no people to manage.
3. Just because not everyone is able as a manager doesn't mean that that position is harder. Most managers would be rubbish as workers (if you believe in the Dilbert principle then that's how they got there).
I'm for flat pay schemes. If you do an hours work you get paid an hours wage (that doesn't mean you can slack off). The person who cleans the loo has committed an hour of their life to their job just as much as the CEO has (if it's not the same person!) - the company needs both people. Yes, apply your capitalist ideas and realise that you can cut the peons wage to the root because you can find a million other people to clean the loo - you can pay them less and greed is a strong motivator. That doesn't mean you should pay them less.
I tried it .. I never knew Slashdot could be so awesome. Digg's version works best IMO.
I also found my computer has an Easter egg, you press this large round area in the front fascia and the screen turns into a mirror. Not the best mirror but it's still an awesome hidden feature.
I'd prepared a very humorous, insightful and engaging response and my browser arsed up on me .. so this'll have to do.
"Capitalism is about people with capital having the most influence."
Not quite. I think the word you are looking for is actually "plutocracy". One could say that the latter logically follows from the former*, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
Plutocracy is a dominant twist within our society which has a largely capitalist fabric but does not (as you go on to say) reflect a true capitalism. Just as no truly communist society has emerged. Western society is as capitalist (with it's social welfare and bailouts, etc.) as Soviet Russia was communist.
"Nor is capitalism about those who are the most productive. It is about those with the most capital, or other source of power, increasing their capital. Sure a by-product can be increased financial efficiency in production within a given company but overall I think it's bad for society."
What? Capital is gained precisely by increasing production and decreasing cost. Your statement of how capitalism works is completely wrong on its face.
I was looking at an individual level. If you have a lot of money, you may have been productive to get it, you may not. But once you have that wealth you can sit on your arse and let other peoples demand for your money generate more wealth for you. A capitalist plutocrat doesn't need to work, his money "works" for him increasing his power as it does so such that he can order society to keep himself in his position.
What concerns me most about capitalism is that the scarcity value of people is low. In a truly capitalist society you work people to death because they're plentiful and as one of the plutocrats you can force people to generate wealth (by their productivity, not yours) for you simply because of their demand for life sustaining resources (food, healthcare, clean water, shelter). Consider Dubai as an example (http://digg.com/d1oA2o; an excellent article in The Independent).
No I accept that I ignorantly imagine investors care about a companies actions rather than assuming the stock market falls and rises on the random whim of hot-heads flaunting other peoples money.
Contrast that with how capitalism should work - people who are most productive accumulate resources that expands their influence.
Capitalism is about people with capital having the most influence. @aurispector, they may also choose to expand productivity to develop that influence but that's not necessarily the case. Consider OPEC, often they can increase their influence by lowering production of a high demand product.
Nor is capitalism about those who are the most productive. It is about those with the most capital, or other source of power, increasing their capital. Sure a by-product can be increased financial efficiency in production within a given company but overall I think it's bad for society.
Don't the torrent networks disallow MPAA use? That would mean on connection that the MPAA is in breach of contract, they're not law enforcement agents and presumably don't have a warrant of the court??
What do you need the battery for? Stick the pin in your brain at one end and use nerve impulses to generate the charge to send the signals with ...
Which bit of the patent, could you at least mention the number of the patent you mean?
All patents include an abstract (in the UK this is often amended by the Patent Examiner as it's a searching tool not a strict part of the patent) and the body of the patent often includes extremely broad preamble.
The claims, as granted, are the vital part for interpretation of the scope of the monopoly - if you haven't got the granted claims you've no idea of the generality or otherwise of the protected "invention".
[...] but at least it'll make the lawyers' job of convincing the rest of the company that swpats are a good thing a bit harder, with the ship sinking from the weight of all the unproductive lawsuits.)
Did you notice that bit at the end of the article (I know, I know!) MS's market value increased by $4 billion in response to the news. I don't think it's going to hurt anyone at MS. Nope, don't know how that works.
basically every DRM that uses online activation?
Blizzard imo. This judge is a moron who set very bad precedent - and now that they have precedent they can sue any company that uses this kind of registration. I see Adobe in the newspaper in the near future.
If the pursuant has a valid patent the judge hardly has a choice now does he.
"Well I find that Microsoft infringed your patent and so this court should award damages in due course .. but I'm not big on capitalism so I'm going to single-handedly overthrow the capitalist system in the USA and find in favour of the defendant, no award of costs.!" [gavel strikes the desk...]
What I don't get is this (from the article):
Shares of Microsoft gained 43 cents, or 2.3 percent, to close at $19.19.
According to tradingmarkets.com their market capitalisation is $174 billion, so their value increased $4 billion from the news that they were fined 388 billion for tortuous infringement??? Wtf? That'll teach 'em!
If any further evidence were needed that capitalism is contrary to good order then I think this is at least a good part of it.
Your tax dollars at work
Really? how many tax dollars do you think were spent? Some guy probably had the movie on his computer and they just put it on repeat. Don't be a drama queen. Like you've never goofed off for 10 minutes on your employer's time, which is all the time it would take. These are people too.
I hope they had an MPAA license!
I doubt they'll sue, that could get dirty real fast. Both companies have what they want - a news story that says to people that if they download movies they're going to get their asses kicked. Shame for the guy in the middle of it.
Wouldn't you have a case against the bank for fraudulently misrepresenting your balance. If they tell you they're holding X credit for you _and_ assure you it's right ...
If on the other hand they're prepared to accept that they make mistakes and say "subject to verification" or the cashier says "can you confirm these transactions" then they're clear and the onus is on you.
No, I don't really think the law would be waited in favour bank customers and against banks lying that they always get it right.
I would think it would be an open invitation for bank fraud.
SirWired
Or you could consider it motivation for teh banks to be careful with other peoples money ;0)>
I go along with you except for the case in which you've asked if the funds are genuinely available for withdrawal. The teller acts as an agent of the bank and so speaks with the authority of the bank (or gives a disclaimer that they can't which in this hypothetical scenario they haven't). In that case the bank has endorsed the money as yours - they have made a grave error which will cost them double as they'll have to fix the error made by not properly crediting the money to someone else's account too.
Perhaps a wealthy anonymous benefactor likes the cut of your jib?
Isn't this just one of the risks of running a bank?
The fact that they talk about it SHOWS that they are not independent. And that was for a pretty minor item. You can imagine how much power Murdoch has over the world.
Fixed it for you.
An interesting counterpoint:
Here in the UK the BBC bought and used a botnet to crack unknown peoples machines and modify their data. They also used the machines to make a DDoS attack against a known machine and to mass spam accounts on private company servers (Hotmail, Gmail) without [it appears] the foreknowledge of those companies.
There's umpteen counts of illegal activity right there that any cracker could serve years inside for.
This was publicly broadcast on BBC in the UK and distributed across the internet via iPlayer and in clips. Action against the "reporters"? None.
Conclusion? In the UK the law only applies to poor shmucks without media connections.
As copyright is a tort it will be interesting to see if the rights owners sue.
These people, intentionally or not, want to destroy this.
Close. These people, being the people in power, want to control it, not destroy it.
Murdoch, if he weren't so short-sighted, would have promoted the reporter for fueling the buzz
Yeah because firing the guy didn't get any column inches (that all mention that the copyright-infringer thought the film might be the best of the year) ... oh wait ...
Are you proposing that he hosts his website on his own machine?
What software do you think he'll need other than a browser (if he decides to manage his customers online)?
Since a RAW image is not even an image, but just a memory dump of a CMOS or CCD, you'd have to know the specifics of that exact chip in order to edit it, and the only people who know that usually are the manufacturers of said chip.
So, "I've got the RAWs, what do you have, JPEGs?"
There are many programs to convert RAW images to standard formats, RAW formats are not secrets and are not specific to the exact chip but may be specific to a range of sensors.
I was talking to someone who showed me their "original web site, created by a local graphics art firm." I immediately recognized several images as stock photos, and the layout looked like a template. A few days later while doing unrelated work, I found the template on templatemonster.com. Ahhh, it was a template, that the local firm populated with their specific details (we do.. our number is.. email us at..).
Just on this point. It was "an original web site", perhaps it used a template but you said yourself that they'd altered stuff in it. Cheap web firms buy (or acquire for free) templates and use them on clients sites. There's probably some minor deception but no more than is common in business advertising.
Now if they claimed they create the individual graphic elements and didn't use a template .. possibly they're still telling the truth, some firms make templates too.
As long as the firm didn't use the template in an infringing way then your friend probably shouldn't care less if they got a cheap website - the guys they thought were the designers aren't but does that matter to them (again providing the template wasn't released with an attribution license).
Sure this wasn't just sour grapes?
They insisted that it was all original work, even though it was easy to see otherwise.
All works are original at some point, lol.
IANAL but AFAICT It doesn't really work that way. First you go after the guy who actually committed the violations. THEN you go after the people who paid him
No. Copyright is a strict liability issue, even if the stock photo agency did not know they are still liable but with lower damages.
... which they should be able to recover based on their contract with their client. If their contract is worth the bits it's written with then it says wirthwhile things about submitting your own work and accepting liability at law and of costs for any submissions which are not your own (possibly even an allowance for the company to decide this without needing a court decision?).
It does sound a bit like the company is libeling/slandering the original artist though.
Happy Lawyers Day!
I think the way courts decide copyright ownership is based upon someone providing the earliest proof of publication
Copyright is about copying, that may sound a truism but in this jurisdiction (UK) it is actually important YMMV elsewhere (not feeling like reading Berne again to be sure).
So in order to show copyright infringement you have to show copying. With photos it's not hard to infer that an identical image is a copy, this will more than likely be assumed, but it's still an important point.
Gaining a legally certain date is like defensive publication for patents - in the UK the patent registration fee was zero briefly ... that would mean you could get an government backed official date for something by making it part of a patent application, you could send anything in it always got a date stamp when it entered the Patent Office. Not sure if anyone ever used it this way but you could simply look for the cheapest government office that accepts general freeform submissions (maybe company memoranda, submit as part of your tax return) and then include your contact sheets of images as part of the submission.
Again, YMMV.
In Tetris it's the fitting together of tetrominoes.
I doubt it is. It's something more like lego, jigsaws or wooden building blocks. Yes I just looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetromino and thought "hey Tetris blocks".
I'm getting old, 30s, so may have come across tetrominoes before I played tetris (and not remembered) but are they as widespread as tetris is? Tetris was based on them originally but the ease of gameplay and popularity isn't, I posit, based on previous familiarity with tetrominoes.
I don't know which it is but .. it happens at midnight.