The normal (read: in the past) way picture copyrights worked is pretty much the same as a record. The copyright owner of a given picture is supposed to be reimbursed when the picture is published. The difference is that all copies of a particular publication count as one use. The payment is usually based on things like how widely distributed the publication is (an internal magazine that goes only to, say, retirees of IBM will have to pay less for publication rights than, say, Time Magazine); you don't get royalties for each copy of Time printed. There are lots of places that manage publication's use of images; they're called stock photography houses. Some photos have been resold hundreds of times.
You have to keep this straight, however - just because a photo has been published doesn't mean it's fair game. If you want to use a picture from Time Magazine, you still have to go get your own pub rights for it. Oh, and p0rn is copyrighted too, and operates under the same rules.
So, when you say
one time modeling payments, and therefore paid for at the beginning
you are actually incorrect. That was a payment to the MODEL, not to the copyright holder of the picture. The model could have gotten a per-publication royalty, but generally they don't. In that sense, they would be the same as a studio musician, in that the musician gets paid a fixed amount to show up and play for a day on the recording, and that's it as far as the musician goes. A studio musician is not considered an "artist" so much as a worker.
Its one thing for.Jpg's and.gif's to be posted, because they are typically a one time payment to the model/artist, but its *totally* different to post a song that is a retail commodity.
I look at Jon Katz articles posted here as trial runs for articles that are going to appear in less technical publications, like maybe Rolling Stone. By putting them here, he gets technical people to look at the article and help him clean up the technical flaws. So, when you say
The world needs to hear it, not slashdot.
I personally believe he's doing that, you're just seeing it first.
Of course, you always have the option of ignoring Jon Katz articles, since you're a logged-in user. Do you deliberately read the articles so that you can be offended and rant?
the Challenger disaster (more of a government coverup than a real disaster--they don't want you to know that it was off it's flight path and on a collision course with Miami)
I'd love to see your evidence for this. The shuttle doesn't have any way to turn 180 degrees while under rocket thrust. If you have evidence for your claim, present it, or else we'll conclude you're just talking through your hat.
the Hubble Telescope which sat out there doing nothing for four years
Wrong. It didn't do nothing, it just didn't generate all the pretty pictures you'd like. There was quite a lot of science going on while the Hubble waited for it's corrective lenses. Look here.
the Mars probes that were suddenly lost
Granted, as a result of the 'faster cheaper' mode of operation. You got one.
and the two year behind schedule International Space Station
Have you checked the Russian economy recently? There are lots of reasons outside the control of NASA for that delay.
1 for 4. That's an accuracy rating of 25%, which means you scored 75 of 100 on the dork-o-meter scale. You can safely be ignored.
Uh, 6 billion years out is a little beyond the thinking of most people. Politicians, for example, generally don't consider beyond the next election cycle.
Why don't we just rerun the movie until everyone is sick of the whole thing, then focus on some of the real issues, like why we need so many cars?
(Assuming this is a real question, not a troll...)
Because man has a need for exploration, and because while we're not sure what we will find, it is certain to be interesting.
Besides, the two are not mutually exclusive. Surely in a country the size and with the economy of ours, we can afford both (and all those other things besides). The amount spent by NASA is a tiny fraction of the amount available. If you're so concerned about spending money, look at some of the bigger targets first - apply the 80-20 rule. You'd probably find the Defense Department loses more money in it's couch than NASA spends. Why not hammer on them?
That's all fine and dandy except, except one tiny little detail. They are only looking in a very narrow section(2.5MHz) of the usable RF spectrum (30,000 MHz).
I do hope you're not being deliberately obtuse. The SETI folks are perfectly aware there is a whole lot of spectrum they are not looking at, and if you've read their explanation (or the same explanation of any other SETI project), you'll have seen why they limited the search in the way they did. But, just to review for those others reading at home, the frequency band was selected because (1) it isn't technically possible to scan all 30,000 MHz, and (2) the band is considered significant for our kinds of life, since it's based on looking around resonant frequencies for components of water. The SETI folks had to make a choice because of limited capabilities, and you're condemning them for it.
Think of all the energy consumed, Approximately ~$66,000/day, that could have been, should have been, put too better use.
What better use would you have? Windows screen savers with less redeeming features? I'm running it on servers that have to stay on all the time, so there's really no wasted energy anyway.
You make the choices you want to make, let others have the same privilige. If you feel that others made the wrong choice, well, I'm sure other folks feel the same way about you.
If you're running something later than the original version of Win95, you can run the NT text-only client just fine. I'm using it here, and it works the same as on NT.
Uh, have you ever actually looked at the Seti client? The vast majority of their calculations are spent compensating for Doppler shifts. If they weren't, the whole thing could be computed in about 3 minutes.
When I got sick of Netscape 4.7x crashing and bogging down, I downloaded Opera 4.01. In the second day of evaluation, I went ahead and paid for it. I'm pretty much switched completely over now.
With cash, you have physical objects to track. You can follow somebody around, watching them lug bags of currency. With encryption, all you've got is data, and if you're careful (data floods to confound traffic analysis, that sort of thing), it can be much harder to trace. All you might be able to figure out is that money magically appeared someplace, which is pretty much the same as with physical cash, but you've got less chance to follow it around.
One of the perceived problems with untracable cash is that the government fears the establishment of an underground, untaxable economy. That was one of the unspoken reasons for the reluctance of the government to approve high-level encryption.
Deja claimed that since the older postings weren't accessed very much, it wasn't cost effective to keep them online. So, they pulled the postings until they could find a more cost effective way to bring them back. While I can certainly understand the cost issues, a couple of points come to mind:
According to Deja's own statements, if they cannot come up with what they consider a cost effective solution, the older postings will NOT come back. "Temporary measures" could easily become permanent, especially if they let the issue sleep for 6 months and people forget about it.
One could easily say that the reason the older postings were not accessed frequently is because Deja structured their site to make it harder to get to the older posts. Therefore, they provided their own justification.
In large part, the difference in the examples you give is not so much gravity, but other issues. For the insect, their fall is governed primarily by aerodynamic drag - in a vacuum it will plummet directly to the ground, same as the horse. In all cases, the amount of damage sustained is controlled primarily by the 'square-cube' law - the strength of the body's structural components goes up as the square of the size, but the mass goes up as the cube of the size. This means the strength to weight ratio gets worse the larger you get, so the larger, hence heavier objects will suffer worse damage.
My problem with this is that it seems there is no other Usenet archive out there that can compare to deja.com regarding completeness and historical data.
Did you miss the story a month ago where Deja took all usenet postings over a year old offline?
But I dont, I go to work and do lots of productive stuff.
That's fine, if everybody who owns an SUV does that. How many are owned by soccer moms who run to the car wash after they drive their monster SUV down a dirty street, and wouldn't be caught dead off-road? You personally may be using it for something other than town crusing, but as the discussion here points out, probably 75% of the SUVs purchased will never be used to their capacity. Thus,all the wasted gas on trips to the mall, and the bogus comparisons to big rigs.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to keep this straight, however - just because a photo has been published doesn't mean it's fair game. If you want to use a picture from Time Magazine, you still have to go get your own pub rights for it. Oh, and p0rn is copyrighted too, and operates under the same rules.
So, when you say
you are actually incorrect. That was a payment to the MODEL, not to the copyright holder of the picture. The model could have gotten a per-publication royalty, but generally they don't. In that sense, they would be the same as a studio musician, in that the musician gets paid a fixed amount to show up and play for a day on the recording, and that's it as far as the musician goes. A studio musician is not considered an "artist" so much as a worker....phil
Is it? How? Pictures are copyrighted also.
...phil
I look at Jon Katz articles posted here as trial runs for articles that are going to appear in less technical publications, like maybe Rolling Stone. By putting them here, he gets technical people to look at the article and help him clean up the technical flaws. So, when you say
I personally believe he's doing that, you're just seeing it first.Of course, you always have the option of ignoring Jon Katz articles, since you're a logged-in user. Do you deliberately read the articles so that you can be offended and rant?
...phil
No, only trademarks.
...phil
Ah yes, nothing like a little censorship to make the day go by faster, huh.
...phil
the Challenger disaster (more of a government coverup than a real disaster--they don't want you to know that it was off it's flight path and on a collision course with Miami)
I'd love to see your evidence for this. The shuttle doesn't have any way to turn 180 degrees while under rocket thrust. If you have evidence for your claim, present it, or else we'll conclude you're just talking through your hat.
the Hubble Telescope which sat out there doing nothing for four years
Wrong. It didn't do nothing, it just didn't generate all the pretty pictures you'd like. There was quite a lot of science going on while the Hubble waited for it's corrective lenses. Look here.
the Mars probes that were suddenly lost
Granted, as a result of the 'faster cheaper' mode of operation. You got one.
and the two year behind schedule International Space Station
Have you checked the Russian economy recently? There are lots of reasons outside the control of NASA for that delay.
1 for 4. That's an accuracy rating of 25%, which means you scored 75 of 100 on the dork-o-meter scale. You can safely be ignored.
...phil
Uh, 6 billion years out is a little beyond the thinking of most people. Politicians, for example, generally don't consider beyond the next election cycle.
...phil
(Assuming this is a real question, not a troll...)
Because man has a need for exploration, and because while we're not sure what we will find, it is certain to be interesting.
Besides, the two are not mutually exclusive. Surely in a country the size and with the economy of ours, we can afford both (and all those other things besides). The amount spent by NASA is a tiny fraction of the amount available. If you're so concerned about spending money, look at some of the bigger targets first - apply the 80-20 rule. You'd probably find the Defense Department loses more money in it's couch than NASA spends. Why not hammer on them?
...phil
If the ruling goes this way, that means the judge will not be ruling on linking, which is what everybody was worried about.
...phil
I do hope you're not being deliberately obtuse. The SETI folks are perfectly aware there is a whole lot of spectrum they are not looking at, and if you've read their explanation (or the same explanation of any other SETI project), you'll have seen why they limited the search in the way they did. But, just to review for those others reading at home, the frequency band was selected because (1) it isn't technically possible to scan all 30,000 MHz, and (2) the band is considered significant for our kinds of life, since it's based on looking around resonant frequencies for components of water. The SETI folks had to make a choice because of limited capabilities, and you're condemning them for it.
Think of all the energy consumed, Approximately ~$66,000/day, that could have been, should have been, put too better use.
What better use would you have? Windows screen savers with less redeeming features? I'm running it on servers that have to stay on all the time, so there's really no wasted energy anyway.
You make the choices you want to make, let others have the same privilige. If you feel that others made the wrong choice, well, I'm sure other folks feel the same way about you.
...phil
If you're running something later than the original version of Win95, you can run the NT text-only client just fine. I'm using it here, and it works the same as on NT.
...phil
Uh, have you ever actually looked at the Seti client? The vast majority of their calculations are spent compensating for Doppler shifts. If they weren't, the whole thing could be computed in about 3 minutes.
...phil
When I got sick of Netscape 4.7x crashing and bogging down, I downloaded Opera 4.01. In the second day of evaluation, I went ahead and paid for it. I'm pretty much switched completely over now.
...phil
With cash, you have physical objects to track. You can follow somebody around, watching them lug bags of currency. With encryption, all you've got is data, and if you're careful (data floods to confound traffic analysis, that sort of thing), it can be much harder to trace. All you might be able to figure out is that money magically appeared someplace, which is pretty much the same as with physical cash, but you've got less chance to follow it around.
...phil
Grow up. Fair use is still legal.
...phil
Applied Cryptography has a good overview of the protocols required to handle digital money.
...phil
One of the perceived problems with untracable cash is that the government fears the establishment of an underground, untaxable economy. That was one of the unspoken reasons for the reluctance of the government to approve high-level encryption.
...phil
"OK! Who has been messing with my laser?!?!"
...phil
Ethernet typically falls over dead when the net reaches about 40% of capacity. 40% of 1Gb/S = 400 Mb/sec. That's why they came up with switching hubs.
...phil
5 meg, $5000, 1980. For an Apple ][.
...phil
Uh, you do realize that Jon is reporting on a book, not necessarily saying these things himself, right?
...phil
...phil
In large part, the difference in the examples you give is not so much gravity, but other issues. For the insect, their fall is governed primarily by aerodynamic drag - in a vacuum it will plummet directly to the ground, same as the horse. In all cases, the amount of damage sustained is controlled primarily by the 'square-cube' law - the strength of the body's structural components goes up as the square of the size, but the mass goes up as the cube of the size. This means the strength to weight ratio gets worse the larger you get, so the larger, hence heavier objects will suffer worse damage.
...phil
Did you miss the story a month ago where Deja took all usenet postings over a year old offline?
So much for 'completeness and historical data'.
...phil
That's fine, if everybody who owns an SUV does that. How many are owned by soccer moms who run to the car wash after they drive their monster SUV down a dirty street, and wouldn't be caught dead off-road? You personally may be using it for something other than town crusing, but as the discussion here points out, probably 75% of the SUVs purchased will never be used to their capacity. Thus,all the wasted gas on trips to the mall, and the bogus comparisons to big rigs.
...phil