My understanding is that one of the primary causes of aging in humans is that a protein that extends telomeres after cell division is turned off in most cells. Additionally as I understood it the only purpose of turning production of this protein off is to prevent cancer.
If p16 functions the same way in humans as it does in mice does this open a potential alternative to telomere shortening and thus a pathway to the elimination of aging?
"In other words I was right all along, you were wrong and so was he."
He and I were right. You supported a claim that he no longer held his copyright. The fact remains that he does indeed hold copyright. An exclusive license is not a transfer of copyright. Licenses can be terminated for any number of reasons.
"Does the concept of a strawman exist in your homespun folksy-wisdom system?"
Cute but your plea to authority falls on deaf ears. Do you even know what a strawman is? Have you taken university courses on logic, philosophy, and critical thinking?
You set the author's own qualification to interpret the contract up as a fine strawman and then bash it down. But the point you challenge (because it is the only point I have claimed) is that the author is a more reliable source for the contract terms than an AC on slashdot.
Any individual of unknown qualification who has had an opportunity to read the author's contract remains a more reliable source for its terms than an anonymous slashdot poster of unknown qualification.
Your other strawman that contracts must be extremely simple and of concrete interpretation was also easily smashed down. It still doesn't support your claim the AC I responded to (or yourself) is a more reliable source of the contracts terms than someone who has read it.
Your arguments might make more sense if I claimed the author had the authority to prevent people from being sued for following his advice or had some other particular right beyond the copyright but I never made any such claim. In truth, I was aware of the exclusive license when I replied to the AC.
"Is he a lawyer? Is he omniscient? Contracts can be extremely tricky things, and he could have signed it thinking it means X when it really means Y, the other party thinks Z and a judge might decide that we've run out of letters."
I don't recall saying he was right. I said that neither you, I, nor the parent I responded to had more direct knowledge of the subject. I would extend that to include anyone on Slashdot including any of the lawyers and doctors you apparently think have holy opinions. Though the attorney he likely had read the contract involving the work he invested years of his life in might have a better claim than the author.
Of course if you had RTFA or even the other comments under the story you might not be burying yourself deeper stubbornly refusing to admit the simple point that the author is more likely to know the terms of a contract he signed than a random ac on slashdot.
I'll save you frustration. He DOES retain his copyright. But he also gave the publisher an exclusive license and US law grants the publisher the right to sue on his behalf under the circumstances.
I think the purpose here is that many people really don't care what is legal or not. They don't care about Apress or his contract.
For many people, the publishers concerns mean less than nothing. For many, the concerns of the actual content creator do matter however. It has nothing to do with legal or illegal, it has to do with right and wrong. Moral views vary.
You only thing speaking and advanced tool usage are spectacular because you like to admire yourself in the mirror. From an evolutionary standpoint they haven't proven to be needed skills. In fact, every species that is not extinct is successfully evolved to date and very few of them have these things you seem to think superior.
It could be argued that the areas in which our brains have developed are directly responsible for the way in which we exploit natural resources. Actually its pretty much a given that humans will eventually consume all their resources or upset natural processes and destroy themselves given enough time. I certainly couldn't say the same of chimps.
Besides, I don't know about you. But I wouldn't want to test my strength, agility, and intellect against that of a pissed off adult chimp. An adult chimp can toss a grown man around like a rag doll. Those diaper wearing things you see on movies are just babies.
"As to you assertion that I have "no moral or ethical right to a copyright in the first place, ideas, images, and sounds naturally flow from one mind to another without restriction they don't belong to anyone" is specious as markets for knowledge and creative works have been around for centuries."
Your assertion is false. Your premise that markets for knowledge and creative works have been around for centuries supports my own argument since these markets flourished and supported creativity without intellectual property. A free market does not rely on artificial copy protection constructs to create artificial scarcity. Without such constructs it is creative talent that is in limited supply, not copies of previously created works.
"Your assertion is a simply a fundamentally flawed idea that because you have an internet connection you have the right to obtain, by any means available, the creative works of anyone and then distribute them as you see fit, to anyone you see fit."
Not at all. My assertion is rather that once the owner of a work has sold that work to someone they have all the same rights the person who created it has because it now belongs to them. If its a sculpture they can make castings, impressions, photograph it, or give it (or any of those copies) away. The sculpture is property owned by the creator until he sells it or gives it away. The copies are owned by whoever makes them in turn not by whoever created the original. The abstract idea of the sculpture that would be covered by copyright is not property in the real world it is not a natural right. It exists only because of government interference in the market.
"yes I want to charge what the market will bare; however, if someone out there decides they don't like the price I am charging, happens to work for a company that has acutely purchased said product then takes that product and slaps it up on TPB or some equivalent what is my recourse?"
None. In a free market you have no right to restrict copying and distribution in the first place.
Your only recourse is what god/nature/the universe provides and that is your ability to enforce your will WITHOUT the government and courts doing it for you. You have no moral or ethical right to a copyright in the first place, ideas, images, and sounds naturally flow from one mind to another without restriction they don't belong to anyone.
There are plenty of reasons people make creative works. Profit incentive is only one of them. And even within the realm of profit incentive there are numerous ways to profit that don't require an artificial IP. Is there some reason a writer, musician, painter, or programmer can't be paid for the individual act of performance? What is so wrong with that?
"So give me an actual reason why they should not profit from the efforts, why they should not earn whatever the market will bare on EVERY copy sold, and why they should expect people to buy one and then post it on TPB or some other equivalent?"
They should be able to make whatever the market will bare. The free market. The one without government interference like copyright and patents.
'Humans have a rather special brain, obviously more evolved,'
From a human perspective. Chimps on the other hand probably would feel that the way in which their brains have developed is superior. Human brains work better in some respects but chimp brains are vastly superior in others such as short term memory.
So anyone have thoughts on why these transitional states were able to survive long enough for our species to evolve from them but weren't capable of surviving and branching?
Actually I think I may know the answer. Apes are social creatures so they are more likely to interact, integrate, and mate rather than branch. It wasn't until mass migration occurred that our line branched leaving large variations between the species in the continents. But with the invention of mass transit our social nature is prevailing and those branches are merging.
If this fossil is 4.4 million years old and already shows great deviations from our most recent known common ancestor and there are several variations that we know of us between us and this specimen, how then do we explain that none of these numerous intermediate species survive today, especially since they must have survived long enough to evolve into us?
Sets of wackos? I realize the general population has no clue but are there really slashdotters who actually think that the electronic voting systems weren't rigged at this point?
A fist is a non-lethal weapon as well. But if a police officer walks up and starts beating the hell out of you with his stick and you even throw a single punch in return you will go to jail. He will get suspended with pay until the media stops watching.
For those of you who apply a blanket nutcase label to anyone who suggests a conspiracy theory.
How do you explain the Pittsbergh police marching gladiator style upon peaceful protesters at a gathering of world leaders and assaulting them with tear gas and sound cannons not being covered by CNN, Fox News, or any other major news outlet? Even the Guardian only gave a vague and brief mention of the cannon as if the weapon used was the story and not the unlawful attack on peaceful assembly?
As far as I can tell, Youtube seems to be the only uncensored news source on this issue. Whether the censorship is direct or indirect (perhaps veiled threats that the news outlet will be blacklisted media release by public officials and such) there is obviously something going on. I highly doubt anyone could make much of a claim that coverage of the police attacking peaceful protests wouldn't get ratings.
You do know that what is cut off is for a man what a clit is for a woman right? It cuts off most of your nerves leaving you will only a tiny piece of what you are supposed to have. It never grows back, you are desensitized for life.
I think you will also find that circumcision is not a substitute for a shower.
Even being slapped over the head with it you are still going to pretend that:
"Suuuuure lets just strap a damn rocketpack on the moon and aim it at us."
Could possibly be a serious comment? Really. You actually think I (or anyone else) might legitimately believe that a nuclear meltdown on the moon would literally propel the moon into the earth?
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is that one of the primary causes of aging in humans is that a protein that extends telomeres after cell division is turned off in most cells. Additionally as I understood it the only purpose of turning production of this protein off is to prevent cancer.
If p16 functions the same way in humans as it does in mice does this open a potential alternative to telomere shortening and thus a pathway to the elimination of aging?
I don't know where you live but around here we realized swarm stupidity a long time ago. Then again, I doubt the swarm has figured it out yet.
"In other words I was right all along, you were wrong and so was he."
He and I were right. You supported a claim that he no longer held his copyright. The fact remains that he does indeed hold copyright. An exclusive license is not a transfer of copyright. Licenses can be terminated for any number of reasons.
"Does the concept of a strawman exist in your homespun folksy-wisdom system?"
Cute but your plea to authority falls on deaf ears. Do you even know what a strawman is? Have you taken university courses on logic, philosophy, and critical thinking?
You set the author's own qualification to interpret the contract up as a fine strawman and then bash it down. But the point you challenge (because it is the only point I have claimed) is that the author is a more reliable source for the contract terms than an AC on slashdot.
Any individual of unknown qualification who has had an opportunity to read the author's contract remains a more reliable source for its terms than an anonymous slashdot poster of unknown qualification.
Your other strawman that contracts must be extremely simple and of concrete interpretation was also easily smashed down. It still doesn't support your claim the AC I responded to (or yourself) is a more reliable source of the contracts terms than someone who has read it.
Your arguments might make more sense if I claimed the author had the authority to prevent people from being sued for following his advice or had some other particular right beyond the copyright but I never made any such claim. In truth, I was aware of the exclusive license when I replied to the AC.
"Is he a lawyer? Is he omniscient? Contracts can be extremely tricky things, and he could have signed it thinking it means X when it really means Y, the other party thinks Z and a judge might decide that we've run out of letters."
I don't recall saying he was right. I said that neither you, I, nor the parent I responded to had more direct knowledge of the subject. I would extend that to include anyone on Slashdot including any of the lawyers and doctors you apparently think have holy opinions. Though the attorney he likely had read the contract involving the work he invested years of his life in might have a better claim than the author.
Of course if you had RTFA or even the other comments under the story you might not be burying yourself deeper stubbornly refusing to admit the simple point that the author is more likely to know the terms of a contract he signed than a random ac on slashdot.
I'll save you frustration. He DOES retain his copyright. But he also gave the publisher an exclusive license and US law grants the publisher the right to sue on his behalf under the circumstances.
I think it is fair to say the author has a better idea of whether he retains copyright than myself, you, the GP, or the idiot who modded the GP up.
Then again, there are things like Lulu. Print on demand means no inventory or printing extra copies.
Typesetting and editing do not meet the criteria to qualify for copyright.
You can rip off the covers and the artwork out and what you have left is something he owns the copyright to.
On the flip side, as has already been pointed out his contract conveys the right to the publisher to sue you whether he retains copyright or not.
I think the purpose here is that many people really don't care what is legal or not. They don't care about Apress or his contract.
For many people, the publishers concerns mean less than nothing. For many, the concerns of the actual content creator do matter however. It has nothing to do with legal or illegal, it has to do with right and wrong. Moral views vary.
We can forgive not rtfa but you should at least read the summary. The author has clearly stated he retains copyright to the text.
Its bad enough you wrote it but then some idiot actually modded this up!
"Kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it?"
You only thing speaking and advanced tool usage are spectacular because you like to admire yourself in the mirror. From an evolutionary standpoint they haven't proven to be needed skills. In fact, every species that is not extinct is successfully evolved to date and very few of them have these things you seem to think superior.
It could be argued that the areas in which our brains have developed are directly responsible for the way in which we exploit natural resources. Actually its pretty much a given that humans will eventually consume all their resources or upset natural processes and destroy themselves given enough time. I certainly couldn't say the same of chimps.
Besides, I don't know about you. But I wouldn't want to test my strength, agility, and intellect against that of a pissed off adult chimp. An adult chimp can toss a grown man around like a rag doll. Those diaper wearing things you see on movies are just babies.
"As to you assertion that I have "no moral or ethical right to a copyright in the first place, ideas, images, and sounds naturally flow from one mind to another without restriction they don't belong to anyone" is specious as markets for knowledge and creative works have been around for centuries."
Your assertion is false. Your premise that markets for knowledge and creative works have been around for centuries supports my own argument since these markets flourished and supported creativity without intellectual property. A free market does not rely on artificial copy protection constructs to create artificial scarcity. Without such constructs it is creative talent that is in limited supply, not copies of previously created works.
"Your assertion is a simply a fundamentally flawed idea that because you have an internet connection you have the right to obtain, by any means available, the creative works of anyone and then distribute them as you see fit, to anyone you see fit."
Not at all. My assertion is rather that once the owner of a work has sold that work to someone they have all the same rights the person who created it has because it now belongs to them. If its a sculpture they can make castings, impressions, photograph it, or give it (or any of those copies) away. The sculpture is property owned by the creator until he sells it or gives it away. The copies are owned by whoever makes them in turn not by whoever created the original. The abstract idea of the sculpture that would be covered by copyright is not property in the real world it is not a natural right. It exists only because of government interference in the market.
"yes I want to charge what the market will bare; however, if someone out there decides they don't like the price I am charging, happens to work for a company that has acutely purchased said product then takes that product and slaps it up on TPB or some equivalent what is my recourse?"
None. In a free market you have no right to restrict copying and distribution in the first place.
Your only recourse is what god/nature/the universe provides and that is your ability to enforce your will WITHOUT the government and courts doing it for you. You have no moral or ethical right to a copyright in the first place, ideas, images, and sounds naturally flow from one mind to another without restriction they don't belong to anyone.
There are plenty of reasons people make creative works. Profit incentive is only one of them. And even within the realm of profit incentive there are numerous ways to profit that don't require an artificial IP. Is there some reason a writer, musician, painter, or programmer can't be paid for the individual act of performance? What is so wrong with that?
"So give me an actual reason why they should not profit from the efforts, why they should not earn whatever the market will bare on EVERY copy sold, and why they should expect people to buy one and then post it on TPB or some other equivalent?"
They should be able to make whatever the market will bare. The free market. The one without government interference like copyright and patents.
'Humans have a rather special brain, obviously more evolved,'
From a human perspective. Chimps on the other hand probably would feel that the way in which their brains have developed is superior. Human brains work better in some respects but chimp brains are vastly superior in others such as short term memory.
What exactly is extint?
*hands you a treat and pats your head*
So anyone have thoughts on why these transitional states were able to survive long enough for our species to evolve from them but weren't capable of surviving and branching?
Actually I think I may know the answer. Apes are social creatures so they are more likely to interact, integrate, and mate rather than branch. It wasn't until mass migration occurred that our line branched leaving large variations between the species in the continents. But with the invention of mass transit our social nature is prevailing and those branches are merging.
If this fossil is 4.4 million years old and already shows great deviations from our most recent known common ancestor and there are several variations that we know of us between us and this specimen, how then do we explain that none of these numerous intermediate species survive today, especially since they must have survived long enough to evolve into us?
I mean aside from yetis, bigfoot, and the like.
"So, yes, chimps certainly must have evolved somewhat, but not as much as humans"
I would contend that they are equally as evolved as humans. They simply evolved in a different way.
Simply because they didn't evolve to be more akin to humans doesn't make them less evolved.
I'm a whispy ghost without innerds you insensitive clod!
Sets of wackos? I realize the general population has no clue but are there really slashdotters who actually think that the electronic voting systems weren't rigged at this point?
A fist is a non-lethal weapon as well. But if a police officer walks up and starts beating the hell out of you with his stick and you even throw a single punch in return you will go to jail. He will get suspended with pay until the media stops watching.
Welcome to the USA.
For those of you who apply a blanket nutcase label to anyone who suggests a conspiracy theory.
How do you explain the Pittsbergh police marching gladiator style upon peaceful protesters at a gathering of world leaders and assaulting them with tear gas and sound cannons not being covered by CNN, Fox News, or any other major news outlet? Even the Guardian only gave a vague and brief mention of the cannon as if the weapon used was the story and not the unlawful attack on peaceful assembly?
As far as I can tell, Youtube seems to be the only uncensored news source on this issue. Whether the censorship is direct or indirect (perhaps veiled threats that the news outlet will be blacklisted media release by public officials and such) there is obviously something going on. I highly doubt anyone could make much of a claim that coverage of the police attacking peaceful protests wouldn't get ratings.
You do know that what is cut off is for a man what a clit is for a woman right? It cuts off most of your nerves leaving you will only a tiny piece of what you are supposed to have. It never grows back, you are desensitized for life.
I think you will also find that circumcision is not a substitute for a shower.
"Yes... and no. Nowadays you have to really trust someone to go unprotected. The stuff you can catch is bad enough you might as well catch fire."
Yeah.... to quote myself in the post you replied to.
"Eliminating STD's and circumcision are two of the greatest causes known to man."
So I guess... we agree?
Even being slapped over the head with it you are still going to pretend that:
"Suuuuure lets just strap a damn rocketpack on the moon and aim it at us."
Could possibly be a serious comment? Really. You actually think I (or anyone else) might legitimately believe that a nuclear meltdown on the moon would literally propel the moon into the earth?
Okay, I was willing to give your first response the benefit of the doubt as some form of dry humor. But with this post I have no choice but to say...
WWWHHHOOOSSSHHH