(donning flame - retardant suit)
MSNBC has actually been doing this for months. Go to their page and click "technology". You'll get an ugly verticalnet ad in the center of your browser. The link to "continue" to their technology section appears directly above.
This may be less of an issue if you download MS's menu features..but ick!
Most people can find the "uninstall" for the filtering program and remove it if they don't want it.
Like most people find the uninstall for that paperclip? or is that a well - loved feature that everybody leaves on their Office installation for the perpetually orgasmic joy of changing focus()?
In this vein, we should create a goase.cx website to hype up the simplistic beauty of this enlightening masterpiece.
Then the proprietor could grant free adverizing space on goatse, to the MPAA
Seripusly, though. as cynical as this sounds, it is nothing new. Somewhere, way inside the lesat obsure link on the site, you might find a statement that "this is an ad" But if not, so what?! IT'S A FAN SITE
What artca$heer isn't a fan of his work?
How many dustcovers on how many novels, have high critical praise from critics that you may not have heard of? How many of those are verifiably unsolicited?
Sounds a bit creepy to me. In order for your computer profile to "follow" you, you have to use tracking technology (called "bats" here).
The truth is, people don't like to be tracked, at home, or at work (privacy, anyone?) We reluctantly accept the fact that we have to wear badges to work, and scan into locked doors, et cetera, but I do not want my employer to have the ability to determine my physical location every second of the workday. $megacorp does have the right to make sure that I am being productive, but that can much more easily be done by using performance metrics (you pushed 4000 papers today!) and, ideally, with the employee's direct relationship to his/her supervisor.
Furthermore, tracking users is not "sentience." this is simply determining the presence or absence of a value given a location. Granted, they took a n additional step in making someones' computer profile follow them wherever they go, but even NT can do that! (to a much lesser extent, but still roaming profiles)
I find it fascinating that the same group who is lambasting Hubbard was, just a few days ago, giggling about how cool it's be to get Jedi acknowledged as an actual religion.
But the other part is: the right, whomever it may be, to anonymously and without giving any reason, immediately and on the spot read public papers in courts and agencies of the municipalities and the state, and to get copies, and publish them, irrespective of the wishes of the original author. 3rd paragraph
So we can read DECSS code into swedish public record and make it "officially" legal (again), as well as PGP code, proprietary source code to broken authentication algorythms (MSKerberos anyone?)
Of course, this depends on your definition of "public", because if it's already public, then it's presumeably already in the public domain...but this is worth considering.
Imagine reciting the lyrics to "oops - I did it again" with the defense that it is a public document of record in Sweden.
If given the choice, who would choose a PC that restricts your rights to copy files you rightly own? Nobody. No demand, thus the supply will falter (witness Sun's Network Computer)
Wrong. Anybody who is duped into believing that it is:
1) cheaper
2) less complicated
3) From / blessed by Microsoft, and therefore "better" (these people still do exist)
4) safer, because the company selling such products will eventually, as part of their services, "fend off certain attacks" for you,
4a) safer from $enforcement_agency, because "only hackers" use anything else
will buy it for the above reasons and overlook whatever glaring and obvious flaws that the system has because, of course, any item that provides any of the above can't be perfect.
Computer consumers are conditioned to believe that
1) the systems they have are not, and cannot, be "perfect"
or 2) the systems are "perfect" but the consumer him/herself is not, therefore the computer will naturally not behave exactly as expected.
Either way, the consumer is duped into believing that if a computer doesn't react as expected, it is because the consumer's expectations are wrong.
(slightly reworded)
The only answer I can think of is systematic government support of approved artists. Salaries. Artists are paid to *be artists.* The works that come out all go into the public domain. Additionally, other work can be commissioned, etc.
The alternatives to me are either 1. a draconian system of increasingly invasive copyright enforcement as new technologies make redistribution even easier all the time, or 2. artists starve, or worse, stop making art. I'd rather pay for artists up front in my taxes (with academies as job-sites, etc.) All in all, it seems like the least oppressive, most productive solution.
What is the substantive difference between tipping a waiter and paying for music - that makes tipping work so well, but voluntary payment for music fail?
Nothing, if you will never repeat business at a restaraunt (which a substandard tip would seem to indicate to the management).
In practice, people in general have "favorite" restaraunts and frequent haunts. Whether the waitron knows your children or not, she will associate your face with your tipping style.
If you accumulate a reputation for tipping poorly, you eventually wind up with a hot, French-onion flavored lap, if they ever get to your table at all.
They're trying to scrape themselves a living, and along comes a wolf who fleeces them.
Having fallen for a few get-rich scheems in my stupider years, I can honestly say that, while I wasn't proud of having been fleeced, I'm glad it only took me a coat of fur or two, to learn to look for those brown, pointy ears.
The problem is, though, that the wolves won't stop after they've taken your coat.
If it was, that's a proxy situation, Not a violation by the student. We could turn this into a "these 3 sites are legal" argument, but if its on the internet, its visible unless its censored.
Misunderstanding a contract agreement does not necessarily invalidate it. If that were the case, anyone could argue that they "didn't understand" any point that disfavors them.
To say that you CAN make a deceivingly - similar likeness of the Mona Lisa using a modified greasepaint - injected bubblejet printer and urine-yellowed canvas, is not to say that DaVinci did the same, or that DaVinci did not exist.
"It's certain, however that nothing that works like a wheel has ever been discovered in nature. Man made it up completely, out of his head."
God must've copied man's wheel in order to make round rocks, snowballs, the solar system, countless galaxies which are thought to revolve around axes, and, oh, atoms.
Yep. That's it. God copied Man's wheel in order to implement revolution and orbits of all kind. Too bad Man didn't patent it.
What happens when "they" already HAVE your information?
If John and Jane Poordoe have little baby Alex, they surrender every bit of data they can , and commit to continue doing so until Alex reaches the age of consent.
Alex, at 18, attempts to surrender some data in order to buy his first car. Since he can't afford to move out yet, he doesn't. Since he can't afford school, he doesn't have much new information on his educational future (other than that he'd like to go someday)
Because there's so little new information on Alex, no one is buying and no one will offer a discount. on the prospect of gathering data that they already have.
The Intellectual Property Clause... permits grants of exclusive protection only for those "discoveries" in the "useful arts" that would not have been obvious to one reasonably skilled in the art, Graham, 383 U.S. at 6, and only for those "writings" that constitute original expression,
Case closed. Everyone knows that nothing original has come out of Hollywood since Green Acres.
- paranoia link - suggests that the project's real, unpublished goal is to "miss" Tempel1 and intercept OX4, whose course with Earth in 2014, 2038, 2044 and 2046 is "possibly" an intercept.
You "own" a copyright simply by virtue of proving that you wrote it, and when.
It was fairly common, before the '90s, to get a "poor man's" copyright by mailing the work to yourself via US post. Some also had the work notarized or sent via registered mail (registered, in the sense that the work is read into public record) The official-ness of the post mark dated your work, but only worked as such in DEFENSE.
IE: if someone else copied your work, and then sued you for copyright infringement, you could produce the letter and the official-ness of the postmarks was sufficient to prove prior art.
On the other hand, you couldn't use this OFFENSIVELY to sue someone else for infringement. In order to do this, you must register the work via the US copyright office, and enter the work in it's "latest and greatest form" into the Library of Congress which is, by the way, a matter of public record.
IANAL, but Copyright law was the subject of my HS senior thesis. That was six (SIX?!?) years ago.
Because your records are already public and have existed since you were born / naturalized, all changes and alterations might be considered "derivitave works" of an original, uncopyrighted work. Not a great position either devensively or offensively.
Slashdot Mirror
(donning flame - retardant suit)
MSNBC has actually been doing this for months. Go to their page and click "technology". You'll get an ugly verticalnet ad in the center of your browser. The link to "continue" to their technology section appears directly above.
This may be less of an issue if you download MS's menu features..but ick!
Most people can find the "uninstall" for the filtering program and remove it if they don't want it.
Like most people find the uninstall for that paperclip? or is that a well - loved feature that everybody leaves on their Office installation for the perpetually orgasmic joy of changing focus()?
Do they do laptops?
In this vein, we should create a goase .cx website to hype up the simplistic beauty of this enlightening masterpiece.
Then the proprietor could grant free adverizing space on goatse, to the MPAA
Seripusly, though. as cynical as this sounds, it is nothing new. Somewhere, way inside the lesat obsure link on the site, you might find a statement that "this is an ad" But if not, so what?! IT'S A FAN SITE
What artca$heer isn't a fan of his work?
How many dustcovers on how many novels, have high critical praise from critics that you may not have heard of? How many of those are verifiably unsolicited?
Sounds a bit creepy to me. In order for your computer profile to "follow" you, you have to use tracking technology (called "bats" here).
The truth is, people don't like to be tracked, at home, or at work (privacy, anyone?) We reluctantly accept the fact that we have to wear badges to work, and scan into locked doors, et cetera, but I do not want my employer to have the ability to determine my physical location every second of the workday. $megacorp does have the right to make sure that I am being productive, but that can much more easily be done by using performance metrics (you pushed 4000 papers today!) and, ideally, with the employee's direct relationship to his/her supervisor.
Furthermore, tracking users is not "sentience." this is simply determining the presence or absence of a value given a location. Granted, they took a n additional step in making someones' computer profile follow them wherever they go, but even NT can do that! (to a much lesser extent, but still roaming profiles)
I find it fascinating that the same group who is lambasting Hubbard was, just a few days ago, giggling about how cool it's be to get Jedi acknowledged as an actual religion.
But the other part is: the right, whomever it may be, to anonymously and without giving any reason, immediately and on the spot read public papers in courts and agencies of the municipalities and the state, and to get copies, and publish them, irrespective of the wishes of the original author.
3rd paragraph
So we can read DECSS code into swedish public record and make it "officially" legal (again), as well as PGP code, proprietary source code to broken authentication algorythms (MSKerberos anyone?)
Of course, this depends on your definition of "public", because if it's already public, then it's presumeably already in the public domain...but this is worth considering.
Imagine reciting the lyrics to "oops - I did it again" with the defense that it is a public document of record in Sweden.
If given the choice, who would choose a PC that restricts your rights to copy files you rightly own? Nobody. No demand, thus the supply will falter (witness Sun's Network Computer)
Wrong. Anybody who is duped into believing that it is:
1) cheaper
2) less complicated
3) From / blessed by Microsoft, and therefore "better" (these people still do exist)
4) safer, because the company selling such products will eventually, as part of their services, "fend off certain attacks" for you,
4a) safer from $enforcement_agency, because "only hackers" use anything else
will buy it for the above reasons and overlook whatever glaring and obvious flaws that the system has because, of course, any item that provides any of the above can't be perfect.
Computer consumers are conditioned to believe that
1) the systems they have are not, and cannot, be "perfect"
or 2) the systems are "perfect" but the consumer him/herself is not, therefore the computer will naturally not behave exactly as expected.
Either way, the consumer is duped into believing that if a computer doesn't react as expected, it is because the consumer's expectations are wrong.
(slightly reworded)
The only answer I can think of is systematic government support of approved artists. Salaries. Artists are paid to *be artists.* The works that come out all go into the public domain. Additionally, other work can be commissioned, etc.
The alternatives to me are either 1. a draconian system of increasingly invasive copyright enforcement as new technologies make redistribution even easier all the time, or 2. artists starve, or worse, stop making art. I'd rather pay for artists up front in my taxes (with academies as job-sites, etc.) All in all, it seems like the least oppressive, most productive solution.
What is the substantive difference between tipping a waiter and paying for music - that makes tipping work so well, but voluntary payment for music fail?
Nothing, if you will never repeat business at a restaraunt (which a substandard tip would seem to indicate to the management).
In practice, people in general have "favorite" restaraunts and frequent haunts. Whether the waitron knows your children or not, she will associate your face with your tipping style.
If you accumulate a reputation for tipping poorly, you eventually wind up with a hot, French-onion flavored lap, if they ever get to your table at all.
They're trying to scrape themselves a living, and along comes a wolf who fleeces them.
Having fallen for a few get-rich scheems in my stupider years, I can honestly say that, while I wasn't proud of having been fleeced, I'm glad it only took me a coat of fur or two, to learn to look for those brown, pointy ears.
The problem is, though, that the wolves won't stop after they've taken your coat.
Make no mistake: They're carnivores.
Was the web site downloadable on school PCs?
If it was, that's a proxy situation, Not a violation by the student. We could turn this into a "these 3 sites are legal" argument, but if its on the internet, its visible unless its censored.
fsck...if you want to see ad abuse, see CNET itself!
Misunderstanding a contract agreement does not necessarily invalidate it. If that were the case, anyone could argue that they "didn't understand" any point that disfavors them.
This article's argument is:
"We have 350 genes that are identical to a rat's, therefore we are descended from rats."
Great. Let's try another:
Elephants are grey. Rocks are grey.
Therefore, Elephants are descended from rocks.
To say that you CAN make a deceivingly - similar likeness of the Mona Lisa using a modified greasepaint - injected bubblejet printer and urine-yellowed canvas, is not to say that DaVinci did the same, or that DaVinci did not exist.
"It's certain, however that nothing that works like a wheel has ever been discovered in nature. Man made it up completely, out of his head."
God must've copied man's wheel in order to make round rocks, snowballs, the solar system, countless galaxies which are thought to revolve around axes, and, oh, atoms.
Yep. That's it. God copied Man's wheel in order to implement revolution and orbits of all kind. Too bad Man didn't patent it.
I have no mod points, but this post needs to be moderated up. Don't know what it'd do to Kats tho :)
Lose the editorial comments (Score:0)
by gaj (greg.jandl@qlogic.com) on 08:15 AM February 12th, 2001 CST (#24)
What happens when "they" already HAVE your information?
If John and Jane Poordoe have little baby Alex, they surrender every bit of data they can , and commit to continue doing so until Alex reaches the age of consent.
Alex, at 18, attempts to surrender some data in order to buy his first car. Since he can't afford to move out yet, he doesn't. Since he can't afford school, he doesn't have much new information on his educational future (other than that he'd like to go someday)
Because there's so little new information on Alex, no one is buying and no one will offer a discount. on the prospect of gathering data that they already have.
The Intellectual Property Clause ... permits grants of exclusive protection only for those "discoveries" in the "useful arts" that would not have been obvious to one reasonably skilled in the art, Graham, 383 U.S. at 6, and only for those "writings" that constitute original expression,
Case closed. Everyone knows that nothing original has come out of Hollywood since Green Acres.
I get allergic smelling hay!
By the way, what's a "sexual premonition" ?
You might call it a wet dream.
Borealis claims to have found this, but very little data is available except a press release.
It's an excitiong promise, but it appears to be quite gaseous.
notes on tempel1 here and here
Interesting notes on deep impact
- Deep Impact FAQs
- paranoia link - suggests that the project's real, unpublished goal is to "miss" Tempel1 and intercept OX4, whose course with Earth in 2014, 2038, 2044 and 2046 is "possibly" an intercept.
You "own" a copyright simply by virtue of proving that you wrote it, and when.
It was fairly common, before the '90s, to get a "poor man's" copyright by mailing the work to yourself via US post. Some also had the work notarized or sent via registered mail (registered, in the sense that the work is read into public record) The official-ness of the post mark dated your work, but only worked as such in DEFENSE.
IE: if someone else copied your work, and then sued you for copyright infringement, you could produce the letter and the official-ness of the postmarks was sufficient to prove prior art.
On the other hand, you couldn't use this OFFENSIVELY to sue someone else for infringement. In order to do this, you must register the work via the US copyright office, and enter the work in it's "latest and greatest form" into the Library of Congress which is, by the way, a matter of public record.
IANAL, but Copyright law was the subject of my HS senior thesis. That was six (SIX?!?) years ago.
Because your records are already public and have existed since you were born / naturalized, all changes and alterations might be considered "derivitave works" of an original, uncopyrighted work. Not a great position either devensively or offensively.