They don't have rights to prevent people being inspired by their works. This sort of [attempted] infringement of the publics rights should be treated as harshly, if not more so, than the original infringement. In Europe I think this would read pretty well on to an attempt to circumvent a persons human rights (according with ECHR).
>character names//
A name is generally considered too short to be a work for the purposes of copyright. They could be trademarked but then it would be fine to use them for non-commercial, non-trade uses or for categories outside of those in which the marks are registered. So, for example, Ian Mckellen is not infringing copyright by having "i'm gandalf and magneto" on his tshirt and provided he produced it himself I doubt you'd be able to pin a trademark infringement on him either.
>*I wish they had more old content on line to watch*//
This I do not understand. They can clearly easily put content up online, but then broadcast shows of their own should just stay available perpetually.
[rant] Then of course you hit the cronyism whereby instead of the BBC creating shows now they license the content from people working [now indirectly] for them effectively paying twice to get what they could have gotten before and coming away worse off in having restricted licenses. Case in point is something like Gardeners Question Time - long time BBC show, or so you'd think, it's a simple panel show where the public come and ask 4-5 experts questions and it all gets recorded for radio... you'd think BBC would have the skills and infrastructure to do something like this cheaper than anyone. Indeed I'm pretty sure they do. But instead they pay a production company to produce it (at what has to be higher cost, so they can make their profit) and then the BBC can't do what they like with the content because they only buy the rights to air the show and make it available for a small period (at remember a profit added cost over producing it and having full rights). According to Wikipedia the production company only came in on things in 2009. Are BBC incompetent to create such a simple show (for which they must even own the name) or are they paying money for something they shouldn't be. [/rant]
You got it right in the first line - you don't need a license to own a TV. You need a license to operate equipment that is capable of receiving broadcasts. You can own a TV but not have an aerial (or other means) and choose to watch content delivered, for example, on DVD or via a media box.
You're even allowed to watch iPlayer without having to have a license so long as you don't "watch live".
The government already funds the BBC [yes, of course, in part] from general taxation and so can currently vary the funding to the BBC on their collective political whim.
The BBC are supposed to be [in part] about choice but they go and replicate what the other OTA free to view channels carry and have ratings wars with them. Why is it about ratings? Why not about quality alternatives? Basically the BBC think they're a commercial enterprise with their output and positioning but never approach being commercial with their funding and ludicrously high wages to "stars". To say they're not politically biased is to lie. But they usually rein it in.
Surely the government can change anything they like as long as HM The Queen signs the bill.
A UK subject is being extradited for actions that his lawyers say are not illegal in the UK (I'm inclined to agree, immoral as they are).
Basically US media companies are currently somehow managing to own worldwide formerly-democratic states to the extent of enforcing US law in, for example, Australia and the UK.
Invisible things can't have a colour (in the visible spectrum). Your argument is internally contradictory. If it's a unicorn it has a corporeal existence that such that I can readily confirm it's presence in my room.
Whilst tales of invisible beasts (I would say mythical but I gather a unicorn instances is confirmed fact) and teapots and all are very nice they don't actually gain any ground. The fact that it's possible to create a story that is untrue doesn't mean that all stories are untrue nor that any other particularly story is untrue.
Not being able to demonstrate something to be true doesn't make it false either (an apt point in this context).
In short your logic (itself axiomatic of course) needs some work.
>*They turned a blind eye to it when he was working at Bletchley and was regarded as "indispensable" to the war effort.*
Do you have some evidence for this.
His fiancée was apparently, by accounts/letters I've read, surprised to find out that he was attracted to males and she worked directly with him and spent a lot of social time in his company.
Also, as details are scarce on this point could you tell me if all his liaisons were short-lived flings with teenagers or only the one that lead to his trial.
>*decide that looking at certain information is illegal and use that to control citizens*//
I don't find it a problem that it be illegal for Her Majesties subjects to gather data on making bombs at home that are optimised to kill said subjects as efficiently as possible. Indeed if no-one is allowed domestically to amass this sort of information then what exactly would we lose as a society?
I'm going to guess that it's something to do with action at a distance. The hardware has shown to be of pretty good quality with low failure rates but the wireless interaction built in makes the user vulnerable to targetted attack in a way in which a hardware defect doesn't. Also that the appropriate health authorities, it seems, don't bother to review code but do look at mechanical and electrical construction.
>"It is very unlikely that the source code in these devices have any remaining bugs due to the length of time that these devices have been used."
I gather that the space shuttle wasn't flown over a year end because the clocks didn't roll over correctly... that has to be some of the most well reviewed and expensively developed code ever; far more care was taken on it than on some random companies pacemaker code I'd be sure. Yet there was this huge bug...
Also, basically your point appears to be that having the code won't make any difference. Well then the company can just divulge it; what difference will it make?
Well, the USSRC say "The USSRC, NASA's first visitor center, opened in 1970 and has served over 12 million visitors to date." and that's where Space Camp is held, in "NASA's first visitor center". Also in the film I watched on the Space Camp website attendees had NASA badges on their suits. Lastly the USSRC "houses NASA's Educator Resource Center"...
So it seems they have something to do with it; but sure as anything they don't run it.
No need to guess [so much] the info about the system is online http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/disability/thecomputer... looks like the website needs some serious updating though, particularly as it doesn't validate and they're showing validation links.
>*receipts only demonstrate that you've paid for the discs, they don't demonstrate that you still own them*//
Isn't the burden of proof on the copyright holder to demonstrate that you didn't purchase them and so unlawfully copied? In copyright cases I think (in the UK) it's on the basis of "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt" but still. It would be interesting to see how the defence "I purchased the discs, downloaded a digital copy to save time ripping them and then disposed of the discs" would fare? You purchased the license to view the work, created a local digital copy (soon to be legal in the UK too!)... why should this be deserving of punishment and in what way is it [will it be] tortuous infringement?
For example you could have disposed of the discs. Aren't the media companies the ones telling us that it's not the article we're purchasing but a license to use the content of the article, the data (music, game, movie, etc.)?
>"it hasn't been about actual performance in a long time"//
Well I noticed a considerable increase in performance with FF7 on one of my computers that was running FF4. It appears to use less processor time and less memory... but you say any improvements are just a myth??
The other much faster system running Nightly 6 didn't appear much changed, FWIW.
>>Block everything. Allow what needs to be allowed. >And then you'll have to hire 10 more IT guys just to deal with all the legitimate requests
You could have a click through that puts a persons name to the unblocking - so instead of hiring anyone you have the user self-certify that the page is work related and doesn't compromise any work usage policies. Internally publish the list of domains and who certified them.
They seem to be about £50 in the UK for a rechargeable BTE hearing aid. There are cheaper ones too. Can't folk just get their medical professional to recommend a model and then buy it online themselves (eg shipped from China)?
>"This is my experience too. I think there actually is legal precedent that specifically says a fax transmitted signature/document is equivalent. Until there's precedent saying the same thing for scanned&emailed documents, it's not going to change."//
I'm pretty sure such e-filing was taken care of in the Civil Procedure Rules in the UK in about 1998.
They should employ someone to update some of their pages, also flatten this a little, there's plenty of whitespace there to use for a simple 'service closed' symbol.
Slashdot Mirror
>including fan artwork //
They don't have rights to prevent people being inspired by their works. This sort of [attempted] infringement of the publics rights should be treated as harshly, if not more so, than the original infringement. In Europe I think this would read pretty well on to an attempt to circumvent a persons human rights (according with ECHR).
>character names //
A name is generally considered too short to be a work for the purposes of copyright. They could be trademarked but then it would be fine to use them for non-commercial, non-trade uses or for categories outside of those in which the marks are registered. So, for example, Ian Mckellen is not infringing copyright by having "i'm gandalf and magneto" on his tshirt and provided he produced it himself I doubt you'd be able to pin a trademark infringement on him either.
>*I wish they had more old content on line to watch* //
This I do not understand. They can clearly easily put content up online, but then broadcast shows of their own should just stay available perpetually.
[rant] ... you'd think BBC would have the skills and infrastructure to do something like this cheaper than anyone. Indeed I'm pretty sure they do. But instead they pay a production company to produce it (at what has to be higher cost, so they can make their profit) and then the BBC can't do what they like with the content because they only buy the rights to air the show and make it available for a small period (at remember a profit added cost over producing it and having full rights). According to Wikipedia the production company only came in on things in 2009. Are BBC incompetent to create such a simple show (for which they must even own the name) or are they paying money for something they shouldn't be.
Then of course you hit the cronyism whereby instead of the BBC creating shows now they license the content from people working [now indirectly] for them effectively paying twice to get what they could have gotten before and coming away worse off in having restricted licenses. Case in point is something like Gardeners Question Time - long time BBC show, or so you'd think, it's a simple panel show where the public come and ask 4-5 experts questions and it all gets recorded for radio
[/rant]
>*given that you need a licence to own a TV,* //
You got it right in the first line - you don't need a license to own a TV. You need a license to operate equipment that is capable of receiving broadcasts. You can own a TV but not have an aerial (or other means) and choose to watch content delivered, for example, on DVD or via a media box.
You're even allowed to watch iPlayer without having to have a license so long as you don't "watch live".
The government already funds the BBC [yes, of course, in part] from general taxation and so can currently vary the funding to the BBC on their collective political whim.
The BBC are supposed to be [in part] about choice but they go and replicate what the other OTA free to view channels carry and have ratings wars with them. Why is it about ratings? Why not about quality alternatives? Basically the BBC think they're a commercial enterprise with their output and positioning but never approach being commercial with their funding and ludicrously high wages to "stars". To say they're not politically biased is to lie. But they usually rein it in.
Surely the government can change anything they like as long as HM The Queen signs the bill.
You know about this? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-filesharing-extradition-idUSTRE80C15C20120113
A UK subject is being extradited for actions that his lawyers say are not illegal in the UK (I'm inclined to agree, immoral as they are).
Basically US media companies are currently somehow managing to own worldwide formerly-democratic states to the extent of enforcing US law in, for example, Australia and the UK.
>"Atheists" aren't and haven't been in a position of power to do such things, //
Um, OK comrade whatever you say ...
Invisible things can't have a colour (in the visible spectrum). Your argument is internally contradictory. If it's a unicorn it has a corporeal existence that such that I can readily confirm it's presence in my room.
Whilst tales of invisible beasts (I would say mythical but I gather a unicorn instances is confirmed fact) and teapots and all are very nice they don't actually gain any ground. The fact that it's possible to create a story that is untrue doesn't mean that all stories are untrue nor that any other particularly story is untrue.
Not being able to demonstrate something to be true doesn't make it false either (an apt point in this context).
In short your logic (itself axiomatic of course) needs some work.
>*They turned a blind eye to it when he was working at Bletchley and was regarded as "indispensable" to the war effort.*
Do you have some evidence for this.
His fiancée was apparently, by accounts/letters I've read, surprised to find out that he was attracted to males and she worked directly with him and spent a lot of social time in his company.
Also, as details are scarce on this point could you tell me if all his liaisons were short-lived flings with teenagers or only the one that lead to his trial.
>*decide that looking at certain information is illegal and use that to control citizens* //
I don't find it a problem that it be illegal for Her Majesties subjects to gather data on making bombs at home that are optimised to kill said subjects as efficiently as possible. Indeed if no-one is allowed domestically to amass this sort of information then what exactly would we lose as a society?
I'm going to guess that it's something to do with action at a distance. The hardware has shown to be of pretty good quality with low failure rates but the wireless interaction built in makes the user vulnerable to targetted attack in a way in which a hardware defect doesn't. Also that the appropriate health authorities, it seems, don't bother to review code but do look at mechanical and electrical construction.
>"It is very unlikely that the source code in these devices have any remaining bugs due to the length of time that these devices have been used."
I gather that the space shuttle wasn't flown over a year end because the clocks didn't roll over correctly ... that has to be some of the most well reviewed and expensively developed code ever; far more care was taken on it than on some random companies pacemaker code I'd be sure. Yet there was this huge bug ...
http://slashdot.org/story/06/11/06/2320235/computer-date-glitch-may-limit-next-shuttle-launch
Also, basically your point appears to be that having the code won't make any difference. Well then the company can just divulge it; what difference will it make?
Well, the USSRC say "The USSRC, NASA's first visitor center, opened in 1970 and has served over 12 million visitors to date." and that's where Space Camp is held, in "NASA's first visitor center". Also in the film I watched on the Space Camp website attendees had NASA badges on their suits. Lastly the USSRC "houses NASA's Educator Resource Center" ...
So it seems they have something to do with it; but sure as anything they don't run it.
No need to guess [so much] the info about the system is online http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/disability/thecomputer ... looks like the website needs some serious updating though, particularly as it doesn't validate and they're showing validation links.
Does Kmail allow you to use html in emails yet?
Scratch that you can get the full images - http://gallica.bnf.fr/proxy?method=R&ark=bpt6k3363w.f8
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3363w/f7.zoom.r=.langEN appears to work properly for me.
They use tiled sub-images to avoid you downloading the image files.
Did you have "An L Adventure" too?
Do you remember using Yeknod to knock a wall down ...
>*receipts only demonstrate that you've paid for the discs, they don't demonstrate that you still own them* //
Isn't the burden of proof on the copyright holder to demonstrate that you didn't purchase them and so unlawfully copied? In copyright cases I think (in the UK) it's on the basis of "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt" but still. It would be interesting to see how the defence "I purchased the discs, downloaded a digital copy to save time ripping them and then disposed of the discs" would fare? You purchased the license to view the work, created a local digital copy (soon to be legal in the UK too!) ... why should this be deserving of punishment and in what way is it [will it be] tortuous infringement?
For example you could have disposed of the discs. Aren't the media companies the ones telling us that it's not the article we're purchasing but a license to use the content of the article, the data (music, game, movie, etc.)?
>*hopping on one leg while rubbing my belly instead of just walking* //
Hopping on one leg and rubbing your belly can be fun!
>"it hasn't been about actual performance in a long time" //
Well I noticed a considerable increase in performance with FF7 on one of my computers that was running FF4. It appears to use less processor time and less memory ... but you say any improvements are just a myth??
The other much faster system running Nightly 6 didn't appear much changed, FWIW.
Here's a picture of /dev/null, I think I captured its best side:
>>Block everything. Allow what needs to be allowed.
>And then you'll have to hire 10 more IT guys just to deal with all the legitimate requests
You could have a click through that puts a persons name to the unblocking - so instead of hiring anyone you have the user self-certify that the page is work related and doesn't compromise any work usage policies. Internally publish the list of domains and who certified them.
They seem to be about £50 in the UK for a rechargeable BTE hearing aid. There are cheaper ones too. Can't folk just get their medical professional to recommend a model and then buy it online themselves (eg shipped from China)?
>"This is my experience too. I think there actually is legal precedent that specifically says a fax transmitted signature/document is equivalent. Until there's precedent saying the same thing for scanned&emailed documents, it's not going to change." //
I'm pretty sure such e-filing was taken care of in the Civil Procedure Rules in the UK in about 1998.
"[P]aragraph 15.1.A(2) of the Practice Direction to Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules" according to this link http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/court-of-appeal/civil-division/filing.htm. I don't care enough to check if that statute citations is right.
Followed that link, http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products/, first thing listed after Google search is "Google Directory". So, like wow, they still have a directory?
Nope, (paraphrasing) 'service closed use DMOZ'.
They should employ someone to update some of their pages, also flatten this a little, there's plenty of whitespace there to use for a simple 'service closed' symbol.